It was reported from Anchorage, Alaska that a federal judge, on
Wednesday, January 28, 3004, ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay about
$6.75 billion to thousands of Alaskans affected by the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill.

The ruling is the latest of several damage awards in the case over the
last decade -- the result of successful appeals in federal court by
Exxon. The company plans to appeal again.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland ordered Exxon,
based in Irving, Texas, to pay $4.5 billion in punitive damages and
about $2.25 billion in interest.

The money is to go to 32,000 plaintiffs who make their living from
Prince William Sound, the site of the 11-million gallon spill.

"We have now closed the trial court doors for the last time in this
litigation after 15 years," said David Oesting, lead attorney for
those who sued. "We're definitely on track to the end of the entire
dispute."

The judge had been ordered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
reconsider the damages awarded in an earlier ruling in light of a
Supreme Court decision last year on punitive damages.

"This ruling flies in the face of the guidelines set by the appeals
court," company spokesman Tom Cirigliano said.

Holland reduced the Exxon punitive damages award to $4 billion a year
ago after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit found the original $5
billion verdict excessive.

For his latest ruling, the judge was to consider a Supreme Court
decision last year on a Utah traffic crash. The justices ruled that a
jury's award of $145 million to punish an insurance company was
grossly excessive when actual damages were $1 million.

The Supreme Court held that the ratio of punitive to actual damages
should not exceed 9-to-1.

Lawyers for each side came up with different estimates for actual
spill damages and argued that the Supreme Court ruling supported their
damage claims.

The spill occurred March 23, 1989, fewer than three hours after the
Exxon Valdez left the Alyeska Pipeline terminal. The ship grounded,
rupturing eight of its 11 cargo tanks.

An estimated 250,000 seabirds and thousands of marine mammals died as
a result of the spill, which contaminated more than 1,200 miles of
shoreline.

Lingering effects of the spill include declines in various marine
populations.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry Krause wrote:

It was reported from Anchorage, Alaska that a federal judge, on
Wednesday, January 28, 3004,

3004?

Do you make this stuff up as you go?

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
It was reported from Anchorage, Alaska that a federal judge, on
Wednesday, January 28, 3004, ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay about
$6.75 billion to thousands of Alaskans affected by the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill.

The ruling is the latest of several damage awards in the case over the
last decade -- the result of successful appeals in federal court by
Exxon. The company plans to appeal again.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland ordered Exxon,
based in Irving, Texas, to pay $4.5 billion in punitive damages and
about $2.25 billion in interest.

The money is to go to 32,000 plaintiffs who make their living from
Prince William Sound, the site of the 11-million gallon spill.

"We have now closed the trial court doors for the last time in this
litigation after 15 years," said David Oesting, lead attorney for
those who sued. "We're definitely on track to the end of the entire
dispute."

The judge had been ordered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
reconsider the damages awarded in an earlier ruling in light of a
Supreme Court decision last year on punitive damages.

"This ruling flies in the face of the guidelines set by the appeals
court," company spokesman Tom Cirigliano said.

Holland reduced the Exxon punitive damages award to $4 billion a year
ago after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit found the original $5
billion verdict excessive.

For his latest ruling, the judge was to consider a Supreme Court
decision last year on a Utah traffic crash. The justices ruled that a
jury's award of $145 million to punish an insurance company was
grossly excessive when actual damages were $1 million.

The Supreme Court held that the ratio of punitive to actual damages
should not exceed 9-to-1.

Lawyers for each side came up with different estimates for actual
spill damages and argued that the Supreme Court ruling supported their
damage claims.

The spill occurred March 23, 1989, fewer than three hours after the
Exxon Valdez left the Alyeska Pipeline terminal. The ship grounded,
rupturing eight of its 11 cargo tanks.

An estimated 250,000 seabirds and thousands of marine mammals died as
a result of the spill, which contaminated more than 1,200 miles of
shoreline.

Lingering effects of the spill include declines in various marine
populations.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable. They collected $0.25
per barrel for spill containment equipment, but never bought the equipment.
Just used it like the rest of their money they collected to disburse a check
to every man, women and child that was a resident of Alaska. And cutting
the 5 to 4 billion, looks like the appeals court will slap the judge again.
Bill

"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:rQZSb.5271
Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable.

Maybe because it wasn't their fault? Naw, couldn't be that, could it?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rQZSb.5271
Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable.

Maybe because it wasn't their fault? Naw, couldn't be that, could it?

Since you snipped my reasoning, I will post it again.

Alaska charged 25 cents a barrel for spill containment equipment. They did
not use the money for the stated purpose. That would constitute fraud in
private business. The spill was many times larger than it should have been,
because of no containment equipment. Therefore the sound reasoning, is the
sound got more damage because of the State of Alaska's failures. They were
therefore responsible for parts of the damage.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rQZSb.5271
Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable.

Maybe because it wasn't their fault? Naw, couldn't be that, could it?

Since you snipped my reasoning, I will post it again.

Alaska charged 25 cents a barrel for spill containment equipment. They did
not use the money for the stated purpose. That would constitute fraud in
private business. The spill was many times larger than it should have been,
because of no containment equipment. Therefore the sound reasoning, is the
sound got more damage because of the State of Alaska's failures. They were
therefore responsible for parts of the damage.

Do you have any proof of your allegations? Let's see it.
So, you think that, if a private company's ships crew runs a tanker
aground, that it's somehow the state's fault? Everything I've checked
out proves your claims unfounded. The Alyeska conglomerate, BY LAW,
has to have their own containment equipment, in place, capable of
containing 15% of the contents of the typical tanker. The rest need
not be on-site but available.