Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Reading my favorite paper this morning
This morning on my way to the train I picked up my free NY Metro paper (I love saying free in front of anything!) and as I started flipping through the pages. I found an article on the Golf Oil spill and how BP is offering compensation and distribution of 20 billion dollars that was set aside to help victims from the spill. While I know all this is going on, since they capped the leak, its sort of fallen to the wayside in the papers and on the news. In the paper, the article I was reading says:
"For the next six months - anyone claiming an emergency payment can also sue BP at a future date; but beyond that period, claimants would forfeit the right to file against the company", Feinberg said. (page 8, NY Metro News)
Reading this seems alittle confusing to me, are they saying that if the person claims an emergency payment now then they can sue over the next 6 months but forfeit the right to file suit against the company after the 6 month period? If thats the case I think its not fair to the workers who helped clean up the oil. When 9/11 happened, alot of the workers went into the site to help and cleanup and ended up with alot of lung and health problems afterwards. They were able to sue later on and get the help they needed for the sickness they endured because of their time around the site. It makes sense to me that anytime cleaning up a site, especially one involving oil, there could be long term health issues involved that may not come out of the woodwork until later on.
What do you think about this? What is Feinberg actually saying? Is BP's Feinberg who is running the fund aware that people who take the emergency help now could later have a worse sickness and wouldn't be able to sue because of the clause "claimants would forfeit the right to file against the company"? If he does know, isn't that unfair and maybe alittle like fraud?