Process of filing damage claims from Texas tanker collision causing confusion among residents

Texas tanker collision causing legal confusion

HOUSTON — To many southeast Texas residents, the paperwork from the lawyer made it clear: If they filed a court claim over illnesses suffered in the state’s worst oil spill in 15 years, they’d get $1,000.

The problem is, the legal packet they got in the mail didn’t come from lawyers representing residents. It actually came from the owner of the tanker that spilled 462,000 gallons of crude oil near Port Arthur — and that company says the mailing was not offering a settlement payment of any sort. The company, AET Inc., says the documents were explaining that the company was not at fault.

In all, more than 19,000 people have filed claims against AET — creating a backlog that forced the federal court in nearby Beaumont to temporarily halt the case. Most claims are from people who said fumes from the spill led to vomiting, headaches and burning eyes.

After receiving the legal packet in February, many residents mistakenly believed the attorney representing the tanker owner was their lawyer and that by simply filing a claim, they’d be getting money.

“That’s what’s in the paperwork,” said Dorothy Green, 40, whose claim said she was sickened by fumes. “My neighbors believe they’re getting money, too.”

The Jan. 23 accident happened when the 800-foot tanker collided with a towboat pushing two barges in the Sabine Neches Waterway in Port Arthur. About 100 people were evacuated for hours because hydrogen sulfide — a hazardous gas with a rotten egg smell — emanated from the oil. Several animals died, but no serious human injuries were reported. The cause of the collision is being investigated.

AET attorney Mark Freeman said the packet was sent to about 5,000 residents in Port Arthur — a mostly poor, mostly black city of 60,000 located 90 miles east of Houston and near the Louisiana state line — explaining that the company is seeking exoneration. The company filed a petition asking that it be found not liable for injuries or damages, or that its liability be limited to the value of the ship and its cargo, about $22 million.

Freeman said the packet was merely intended to “get the word out” about AET’s exoneration request and tell residents how they could file claims. He said the $1,000 mentioned in the packets refers to a bond amount to cover court costs. Freeman said claims about AET paying $1,000 were just rumors.

“We’ve not settled any claims,” he said.

But Ryan Gertz, an attorney representing 110 people who have filed claims, said the packets were “filled with legal mumbo jumbo … confusing to a layman and a lawyer.” Gertz said the packets made it seem “that every one in Port Arthur would be getting a check for $1,000 by filling out the form.”

While the paperwork is technical, Freeman says it’s still “pretty clear” and there shouldn’t be any confusion.

Part of the confusion stems from AET’s petition for exoneration. The company and its subsidiaries are listed as plaintiffs on that document, which is correct under maritime law. Because Freeman was listed as the plaintiffs’ attorney, many residents thought he was their lawyer because they’re plaintiffs in regard to the spill.

Horace Prevost, 73, who also said he was sickened by fumes, saw the documents and believed Freeman is representing him and is just waiting to hear back from him.

“He will take (the claim) to the shipping company and he will get back to us,” Prevost said.

The claims overwhelmed the federal district clerk’s office and prompted U.S. Magistrate Judge Keith Giblin late last month to temporarily halt the case so workers could catch up on the backlog of 10,000 unprocessed claims.

Most claims are from people who said the fumes sickened them, but fishermen and state agencies also have filed claims.

Further confusing the case is the fact that about 17,000 of the claims were filed by people without attorneys. If they don’t get assigned attorneys, “it will just be chaos,” Gertz said.

Freeman said he is confident an efficient process will be set up to fairly evaluate each claim.