CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N10036-1401

Claimant : Sandra Curtis Lowell

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US)

Type of Claim : Real or Personal Property

Amount Requested : $53,304.00

FACTS: 

On or about 20 April 2010, the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon (Deepwater Horizon) 

exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the explosion and sinking, oil was discharged. 

The Coast Guard designated the source of the discharge and identified BP as a responsible party (RP). BP 

accepted the designation and advertised its OPA claims process. On 23 August 2010, the Gulf Coast 

Claims Facility (GCCF) began accepting and adjudicating claims for certain individual and business 

claims on behalf of BP.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT:

On 13 September 2011, Sandra Curtis Lowell (the Claimant) presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF) for $53,304.00 in damage to real or personal property resulting from the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. 

The Claimant owned property on Dauphine Island, Alabama. The property consisted of land. The land is 

not on the beach but is not far from the water. 1

 According to the Claimant, the property was valued at 

$80,000.00 approximately three years ago.2 The Claimant further stated that the oil spill caused the 

property to lose value and that the “[p]roperty was recently sold for $28,000.003 less $1,304.00 

commission and expenses.”4

 Thus, the Claimant seeks a total loss on the sale of $53,304.00.5 The 

property was sold on 29 June 2010.6

 

Claimant indicated that the property was not damaged by oil or oil pollution, and that this claim is for 

losses related to “property depreciation.”7

 The NPFC has reclassified this claim as a claim for loss of 

profits and impairment of earnings capacity in the amount of $53,304.00 based on diminution in property 

value, as explained below.

Before presenting the claim to the NPFC, the Claimant filed a Full Review Final (FRF) Claim with the 

GCCF. The claim was assigned Claimant ID #1096701 and claim #94114602.8

 The FRF claim was 

denied on 16 July 2011.9 As of the date of this determination, the NPFC has been unable to confirm the 

amount of the FRF claim presented to the GCCF.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION and Claimant’s Claim Analysis:

1

PHONECON Between Claimant and NPFC Staff 16 September 2011 

2 OSLTF Claim Form signed by the Claimant

3

Lots and Land Purchase Agreement dated 16 June 2011 for property at 151 LaSalle Street, Dauphin Island, 

Alabama 

4 Hand-written letter from Claimant explaining the claim 5 Total loss ($80,000- $28,000- $1,304=$53,304) 6 PHONECON Between Claimant and NPFC Staff 16 September 2011 

7

PHONECON Between Claimant and NPFC Staff 16 September 2011

8 GCCF On-Line Claim Status 9 GCCF Denial Letter dated 16 July 2011

 
The Claimant requested reconsideration which was received by the NPFC on October 26, 2011 via email. 

The Claimant provided no new information with her request for reconsideration but requested an 

extension of time to present additional information in support of her request for reconsideration. On 

October 28, 2011, the NPFC acknowledged receipt of the Claimant’s request for an extension of time and 

the NPFC explained that the Claimant needed to provide a justification for her request for extension as it 

is not automatically granted. On October 29, 2011, the Claimant responded to the NPFC’s email asking 

for a justification on her request for extension and she stated she was very confused regarding her claim. 

She further stated the entire ordeal was too involved and that she believes she should turn her matters over 

to an attorney.

The Claimant stated all she wants is someone to recognize that she had a piece of property which at one 

time was valued at $85,000.00 and now that she has reached retirement age and had to sell the property 

for $26,338.51, she seeks the difference between her alleged property value and what she sold the 

property for. The NPFC responded to the Claimant on November 2, 2011 apologizing for the confusion 

she is experiencing. The NPFC tried to better explain the claims process and provided some general 

information on types of information she could produce on reconsideration that would assist in 

demonstrating the value of the property pre and post spill. The NPFC further explained that while the 

property sold post spill for a much lesser amount than what she asserts the property was worth, the mere 

sale post spill does not automatically mean the oil spill caused the price differential. The NPFC reiterated 

that the Claimant had until November 20, 2011 to get any and all new information to our office for 

consideration. 

NPFC Determination on Reconsideration

Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the NPFC all 

evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR § 136.233, a claimant must establish loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity and 

that the loss was due to the destruction or injury to real or personal property or natural resources. The 

NPFC considered all the documentation submitted by the Claimant. The request for reconsideration must 

be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, providing any additional 

support for the claim. 33 CFR 136.115(d). 

The NPFC performed a de novo review of the entire claim submission upon reconsideration. 

While the Claimant requested reconsideration and an extension of time to provide new information, the 

Claimant failed to meet the deadline to submit new information in support of her request for 

reconsideration as of November 20, 2011.

Upon review of all information provided, the NPFC again denies the claim on reconsideration because the 

Claimant has failed to provide anything new or make any factual or legal arguments in support of her

request for reconsideration. While the Claimant asserted loss of income as a result of the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, the Claimant has not provided detailed documentation to demonstrate her alleged loss.

Because the Claimant did not meet her deadline to present new information, this claim is denied on 

reconsideration. 

Claim Supervisor: Thomas Morrison

Date of Supervisor’s review: 11/29/11

Supervisor Action: Denial on reconsideration approved

Supervisor’s Comments: