Should I File a BP Claim? Do I Need to File a BP Lawsuit?

June 24th, 2010. By Kristine B

Ok, so for the past week, there’s been a lot of news on the BP $20 billion fund. And you’ve been reading about how quickly BP wants to release the monies to claimants. But many of you who’ve been affected by the BP oil spill may not know just what you’re supposed to do. You’ve probably got questions like…

Do I have to file a claim with BP?

Should I get a lawyer for my BP claim—or just submit a claim to BP?

Will my BP claim be enough to fully compensate me?

If I file a claim with BP, can I also file a lawsuit against BP?

Questions, questions. And a lot of confusion. Well, recently LawyersAndSettlements.com interviewed attorney Wes Pittman of The Pittman Firm, P.A. on this very subject. And I thought it would make a good topic for Pleading Ignorance—so here goes…

Yes, BP has indeed set aside a $20 billion fund for legitimate claims from people affected by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Although the news is good, that doesn’t mean it’s smooth sailing for all victims of the spill. Your first question is probably: 

Do I have to file a claim if I’ve been affected by the BP oil spill? 

One of the main ways that the claim fund affects victims is that victims must file a claim before they can file a lawsuit, according to attorney Wes Pittman. Pittman says filing a claim is a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit. So, if you intend to file a lawsuit, you must first file a claim with BP.

Fair enough. But…

Does filing a claim with BP mean I don’t have to file a lawsuit?

In a perfect world, that’s what this would mean. But this is not a perfect world and there are many variables in each claim. For example, BP says it will pay out all “legitimate” claims—take a look and you’ll see most quotes about the claims BP will pay mention the word “legitimate”. But, what BP sees as legitimate and what you and your lawyer see as legitimate may not be the same.

For example, there are many people indirectly affected by the oil spill. Consider event planners who make money planning events along the coast and have lost income because people don’t want Read the rest of this entry »

Sue McDonald’s? Sounds Frivolous to me

June 23rd, 2010. By AbiK

So The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is targeting McDonald’s and its ubiquitous Happy Meal toys. Seems if McDonald’s doesn’t stop dangling those toys in front of wide-eyed kids, the CSPI is set to sue the fast-food giant.

Now, I’m no fan of Happy Meals. Though, I will say, kid-sized menus across the board have slowly been responding to consumer demand for healthier options to be included in the movie-du-jour carry-out meal box. Options like low-fat milk, apple slices, carrot sticks… Still, let’s face it, a Happy Meal cannot compare to a wholesome meal.

But, as far as I’m concerned, this is another example of the “who’s responsible here?” question.

Here’s a typical example of how Happy Meal marketing plays out in my home—which includes three kid-meal aged kids:

Mom (aka me): Darn, I wanted to get that roast in the oven but now it’s too late!

Kids: Let’s go to McDonald’s!!!!!

Mom: No.

If you’ve noticed, there’s a two-letter word there that flew—effortlessly I might add—right out of my mouth. In case you missed it, it was “No.”

As in No, we’re not going to McDonald’s. No, we’re not getting any Happy Meals. No, I’m not letting any Happy Meal toys enter the house only to find themselves heading to a landfill within mere minutes of the meal’s consumption. If you haven’t yet noticed, Mommy doesn’t do Happy Meals. I do Happy. I do Meals. But the two don’t co-exist at the dinner table.

So the CSPI sent McDonald’s a letter stating that Mickey D’s is violating state consumer protection laws in four states and Washington, DC. According to cnn.com, the letter gives McDonald’s 30 days to agree to stop using toys in its Happy Meals.

The CSPI also seems to like extremes when it comes to the use of analogy—granted, it’s for effect, but still—here’s what their litigation director is quoted as having said in a prepared statement: “McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children…It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

If I take that literally, Ronald McDonald ought to be on a searchable sex offender Read the rest of this entry »

Chinese Drywall Victim’s Award Like “First to Land on Moon”

June 23rd, 2010. By LucyC

A bit of a landmark lawsuit snuck under that radar this week. A couple from Florida—whom you may have heard of if you are following the Chinese Drywall debacle—Lisa and Armin Seifart—were awarded about $2.5 million by a jury in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in damages and expenses in their defective drywall lawsuit. They had asked for $4 million. 

The Seifarts brought their lawsuit against the Miami-based drywall supplier, Banner Supply, and drywall manufacturer, Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin. It turns out Banner had an agreement with Knauf Plasterboard to replace some 2.3 million square feet of defective Chinese drywall with domestically made product. But, smelling an opportunity to save a buck, Banner only replaced the defective drywall in homes where builders and/or installers actually complained about the smell. Yup, that stinks. Pun intended. Had these companies acted with conscience, thousands of people could have been spared the expense, health problems and general stress that has accompanied this mess. Not to mention the courts’ time that will be used to help in the clean-up. 

FYI—we  are not talking small numbers here. There are some 36,000 homes, according to media reports, affected by the dodgy drywall in Florida alone, and possibly as many as 100,000 nationwide, including California, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, and Louisiana. (More problems for the people in the beleaguered Gulf states.)

But let’s get back to the Seifarts for a moment. Two years and $700,000 later—that’s the money they have so far shelled out on repairs to their five bedroom, five bathroom pad—the estimated market value of their house is currently about $200,000.

That’s if they could sell it given the stigma that Chinese drywall carries. Be honest—would you buy a house that had contained sulphur-infected drywall in its original build? 

So even though the Seifarts have gutted their house and are rebuilding, and have been awarded $2.5 million to help them recover—they may be stuck. 

It also remains to be seen whether or not the Seirfarts actually collect their settlement. Just recently, seven Virginia homeowners were awarded $2.6 million by a federal judge, as settlement of their Chinese Drywall suit, but because the manufacturer—Taishsan Gypsum Co did not take part in the proceedings, the verdict is in limbo, as are the homeowners.  

Let’s hope the Seifart’s verdict will make a difference.

BP Oil Spill Fix #16 – BP Doesn’t Want it Fixed?

June 22nd, 2010. By AbiK

Here’s an interesting twist from a reader—though I have to say, those of us who lean toward the skeptical side of things have perhaps had this thought nestled in our minds already… What if, just what if, BP didn’t really want a quick fix for the mess it’s created? Not that they don’t care about all those who’ve been impacted. Not that they don’t want to make things right. But, hey, it takes time to dig a relief well and, gee, that relief well could come in quite handy and, hmm, if they plug the well that’s spewing oil into the Gulf before the relief well is up and running…hmm. I don’t know. Maybe I’m just too jaded at this point. Guess I’m a bit jaded, too, when I hear that U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman has blocked the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. So here’s what our reader has to say about fixing the BP Oil Spill… 

Fix the BP Oil Spill Idea #16

“I have also submited my ideas and have seen other ideas that will work. I now realize that BP does not want to fix the problem just yet, they want to drill the relief well and plug the well that way they will have the relief well in place to use just like the old well. I hope the gov. will not let them use the relief well for pumping oil.”

What do you think?

Got an idea you’d like to share? Let us know. Or email our editor at .

Couldn’t Have Been the Chalupa: In a Slump at Taco Bell

June 22nd, 2010. By LucyC

Welcome to Totally Tortelicious—a review of some of the more bizarre legal stories making news—and there’s certainly no shortage of them.  

Continuing on with our Drive-thru theme from last week—but sadly no food fights to report this week. Instead, a rather sad tale of a woman who passed out in a Tennessee Taco Bell drive-thru. 

Was it slow service or a really tired menu? (bad, I know). 

Well, neither, as it turns out. The police were called out, presumably by a Taco Bell employee, when the 34-year old woman was found slumped over the wheel of her car with the engine running. Yup, that would certainly warrant some attention. 

The police found several open cases of beer and pill bottles in her car. Always a winning combination, not guaranteed to get you through your day in the best of shape. 

Now there were also two passengers in the car, who presumably were in similar shape, since no one offered to take the wheel. All three were arrested—the woman driving for DUI—and her two passengers for being in possession of pills for which they did not have prescriptions. Some Mother’s Little Helpers—perhaps? 

Well, whatever you want to say about working in a fast food joint—it certainly doesn’t seem dull…

Just not feeling the love at the nudist colony. Seems kind of strange that someone would be concerned with towels at a nudist colony, but that’s precisely what happened here. Here being the Lake O’ the Woods Camp nudist colony in Indiana.

Now, while I’ve never actually been to a nudist camp, I always got the sense that love and peace and harmony were part and parcel of communing in one’s most natural state. Matter of fact, Lake O’ the Woods seems quite fond of the tagline, “Welcome all ye who seek sunshine and rest for here they are abundant.” Not exactly a what one perceives as a magnet for those with anger management issues. Unless, of course, you’re this guy.

James Schodtler, a 61-year old retired Chicago police officer and apparent “social nudist”, was at Lake O’ the Woods where he must’ve claimed Read the rest of this entry »