David W. Oesting, Partner in Charge, Alaska Office
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Suite 800
701 West Eighth Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501-3408
Dear Mr. Oesting:
I was greatly dismayed to read today that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that ExxonMobil should now be responsible for paying only half of the five billion dollars in punitive damages it was originally ordered to pay after the Valdez oil spill of 1989. The incident is most likely not still fresh on everyone’s mind, but I still avoid pulling into Exxon stations, heeding the boycott that was called for so many years ago.
The reasoning that representatives for Exxon are using is outrageous. According to an Associated Press report, the Supreme Court contends that punitive damages “usually” can not amount to “more than nine times the general damages.” I would think that oil companies must prove an exception to this. One of the purposes of awarding punitive damages, as I understand it, is to punish the offending party, to make the ruling sting a bit. When a company has such unprecedented amounts of money rolling in as the big oil companies currently do, an unusually high award in damages is necessary to make it sting. If Exxon was not driven to fight this in the courts, that would be a sign that the award was not high enough.
The Supreme court ruling regarding the limits on punitive damages reportedly went into effect in 2003. I would be very curious to know whether lobbyists for big oil were pushing for that one. It would be right in line with the tradition of high-profit industries seeking the government’s protection against having to be responsible to the public for any damage they may cause. Is anyone trying to get that ruling reversed?
I wish you luck in your efforts to seek justice in this matter.
Truly,
Liz Mann
