CLAIM SUMMARY/DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number N10036-1564

Claimant Mr. Larry Dacus

Type of Claimant Corporate (US)

Type of Claim Loss of Profits and Impairment of Earning Capacity

Amount Requested $28,248.09

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 

certain individual and business claims on behalf of BP.

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT

On 16 November 2011, Mr. Larry Dacus, on behalf of his marine construction business 

(collectively, the Claimant) presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) 

seeking $28,248.09 in loss of profits damages resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 1

The Claimant works in “marine construction,” building piers, docks and boathouses in and 

around Mobile Bay.2

 The Claimant alleges that he works seasonally, from April – October and 

that his earnings vary significantly each year based on the contracts that he is awarded.3

The Claimant alleges that due to the oil spill, two contracts for construction projects in Mobile 

Bay were cancelled, resulting in lost revenue in the amount of $84,200.00, and lost profits in the 

amount of $26,388.09.4

 

The Claimant seeks lost profits of $26,388.09, as well as $1,860.00 as reimbursement for the cost 

of hiring Full Scope Services to prepare the loss assessment report presented to the NPFC.5

 The 

Claimant’s has presented total losses of $28,248.09.6

APPLICABLE LAW 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), at 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable 

for removal costs and damages resulting from the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone, as described in § 2702(b) of 

OPA. 

The OSLTF which is administered by the NPFC, is available, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4) 

and § 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, to pay claims 

for uncompensated damages. One type of damages available pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 136.231 is 

1 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, received 16 November 2011.

2 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, received 16 November 2011.

3 Letter from the Claimant to the GCCF, 23 February 2011; PHONECON: Claimant and NPFC Staff, 22 November 

2011.

4 Exhibit C, Business Loss Calculation 5 Exhibit C, GCCF Interim Claim Analysis.

6 Full Scope Services, GCCF Interim Claim Analysis.

 
a claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury to or destruction of

natural resources.

Under 33 C.F.R. § 136.233 a claimant must establish the following:

(a) That real or personal property or natural resources have been injured, destroyed, or lost.

(b) That the claimant’s income was reduced as a consequence of injury to, destruction of, or 

loss of property or natural resources, and the amount of that reduction.

(c) The amount of the claimant’s profits or earnings in comparable periods and during the 

period when the claimed loss or impairment was suffered, as established by income tax 

returns, financial statements, and similar documents. In addition, comparative figures for 

profits or earnings for the same or similar activities outside of the area affected by the 

incident also must be established.

(d) Whether alternative employment or business was available and undertaken and, if so, the 

amount of income received. All income that a claimant received as a result of the 

incident must be clearly indicated and any saved overhead and other normal expenses not 

incurred as a result of the incident must be established. 

Under 33 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 136.235, the amount of compensation allowable for a claim involving loss of 

profits or impairment of earning capacity is limited to the actual net reduction or loss of earnings 

or profits suffered. Calculations for net reductions or losses must clearly reflect adjustments 

for—

(a) All income resulting from the incident;

(b) All income from alternative employment or business undertaken;

(c) Potential income from alternative employment or business not undertake, but reasonably 

available;

(d) Any saved overhead or normal expenses not incurred as a result of the incident; and

(e) State, local, and Federal taxes.

DETERMINATION OF LOSS 

Claimant’s Submission to the OSLTF

To support this claim, the Claimant submitted the following documentation:

• Optional OSLTF Claim Form, received 16 November 2011;

• Letter from Greg T deCelle, re: Cancellation of pier and boathouse, 18 July 2010;

• Proposal for work to be performed by the Claimant for Larry Dacus, 15 April 2010;

• 3 page plan Greg deDelle Pier & Boathouse;

• Letter from the GCCF to the Claimant, noting inclusion of GCCF Claim submission, 30 

September 2011;

• Proposal for work to be performed by the Claimant for James Meador, 8 June 2010;

• GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form, Claimant ID 3501894;

• Copy of the Claimant’s driver’s license;

• Full Scope Services, Larry Dacus, 2010 Projected Revenues;

• Full Scope Services, Larry Dacus, “GCCF Interim Claim Analysis”;
• Full Scope Services, business loss calculation, showing lost income of $26,388.09;

• Full Scope Services, Schedule C Operating Income and Expense Worksheet;

• Full Scope Services, Authorization to Release, 27 October 2010;

• Full Scope Services, Certifications;

• Full Scope Services Invoice to the Claimant, 23 February 2011;

• 2010 Business License, state of Alabama;

• Full Scope Services, Documentation Checklist for Lost Profit Claims;

• 2009 From 1040 showing adjusted gross income of $8,477.00;

• 2009 Schedule C (Form 1040), showing profit of $9,122.00;

• 2009 Schedule SE (Form 1040);

• 2010 Carryforward Information;

• 2009 Alabama Form 40;

• 2009 Alabama Form 2210AL;

• 2007 Form 1040, showing adjusted gross income of $7,479.00;

• 2007 Schedule A Form 1040;

• 2007 Schedule C Form 1040, showing profit of $8,048.00;

• 2007 Schedule SE (Form 1040);

• 2007 Alabama Form 40;

• 2007 Alabama Schedule A (Form 40);

• 2008 Form 1040, showing total income of $2,575.00;

• 2008 Schedule C (Form 1040), showing profit of $2,575.00;

• 2008 Alabama Form 40;

• Letter from the Claimant regarding seasonality of business, 23 February 2011;

• Letter from the Claimant to the GCCF, regarding lack of documentation to show monthly 

income;

• Notarized letter from the Claimant to the GCCF, regarding lack of work in 2010 and first 

quarter of 2011;

• 2011 Monthly Profit and Loss Statement;

• 2010 Monthly Profit and Loss Statement;

• 2009 Monthly Profit and Loss Statement;

• 2008 Monthly Profit and Loss Statement;

• Email from the Claimant to the GCCF regarding missing payment check, 8 July 2011;

• GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form;

• GCCF Letter Denying Emergency Advance Payment claim, 17 March 2011;

• GCCF Deficiency Letter on Interim Payment/Final Payment Claim, 9 April 2011;

• 2008 Monthly Profit and Loss Statement;

• Fax Cover Sheet, 19 December 2011;

• Response to NPFC Request for additional information, 15 December 2011;

• Copy of check from Gregory T. DeCelle to the Claimant, 14 October 2010.

Prior to presentment of this claim to the NPFC, the Claimant presented a First Quarter Interim 

Payment Claim (ICQ12011) to the RP/GCCF seeking $28,248.09 in loss of profits and wages 

damages.7

 The Claimant was assigned Claimant ID # 3501894, and the ICQ12011 was assigned 

claim # 9301172.8

 The GCCF issued payment on this claim in the amount of $10,934.86 and 

offered the Claimant $25,000.00 as full and final settlement.9

 As of the date of this 

7 GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form, at IV.C.

8 GCCF Claimant Status, accessed on 20 December 2011.

9 GCCF Determination Letter on Interim Payment/Final Payment, 24 June 2011.

 
determination, the ICQ12011 is under re-review and the Claimant has not accepted the GCCF 

final payment offer.10

On 16 November 2011, the Claimant presented this claim to the NPFC, seeking loss of profits 

and earnings damages in the amount of $28,248.09.11 Because this is a claim seeking the same 

damages and regarding the same subject matter as the claim presented to the RP/GCCF in 

ICQ10211, the NPFC may properly adjudicate the entirety of this claim as currently before the 

NPFC.12

NPFC Determination

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(E) and 33 C.F.R. Part 136, a claimant must prove that any loss of 

income was due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or of a natural resource 

as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. Under 33 C.F.R. § 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 this claim.

As an initial matter, the NPFC notes that the OSLTF is available to pay claims for 

uncompensated damages resulting from an oil spill incident.13 The Claimant has been previously 

compensated in the amount of $10,934.86 by the RP/GCCF for the losses that are the subject of 

this claim.14 This payment included $1,860.00 in compensation to the Claimant for costs 

incurred in preparation of loss assessment reports. 15 The remainder of the claimed damage 

amount, $17,313.23, represents allegedly uncompensated damages, which shall be addressed in 

the following paragraphs of this determination. Because claimed damages have already been 

paid by the RP/GCCF in the amount of $10,934.86, these damages are initially denied.

This claim is based on the Claimant’s alleged loss of profits due to the cancellation of two 

construction projects in Mobile Bay, during the spring and summer of 2010. Each project will be 

discussed in turn below. The remainder of this claim in the amount of $17,313.23 is denied 

because (1) payments made by the responsible party have fully compensated the Claimant for 

any losses the Claimant may have incurred, and (2) the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that 

any losses incurred were caused by the discharge of oil resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill.

1. Project 1

The first project was for construction of a pier and boathouse on Mobile Bay during the late 

spring of 2010.16 The Claimant’s proposal, signed by the homeowner, notes a total construction 

price of $55,520.00.17 The Claimant provided a letter written by the homeowner, stating that the 

homeowner had “cancelled the construction of [the] pier and boathouse on Mobile Bay because 

of ongoing concerns with possible contaminated water due to the BP oil leak.” 18 Upon 

contacting the homeowner to verify this information, the NPFC learned that the project was not 

10 GCCF Claimant Status, accessed on 22 November 2011. 11 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, received on 16 November 2011. 12 33 C.F.R. § 136.103(a). 13 33 C.F.R. § 136.1(a)(1). 14 GCCF Determination Letter on Interim Payment/Final Payment, 24 June 2011. 15 GCCF Determination Letter on Interim Payment/Final Payment, 24 June 2011. 16 Proposal signed by Mr. Greg T. deCelle, 15 April 2010. 17 Proposal signed by Mr. Greg T. deCelle, 15 April 2010. 18 Letter from Mr. Greg T deCelle, 18 July 2010.

 
cancelled, but rather was postponed, and has since been completed.19 The homeowner indicated 

that he ultimately decided to build a structure more suitable to withstand high winds and 

hurricanes, and therefore chose not to move forward with the Claimant’s original proposal.20 

However, the Claimant did perform certain construction work for the project, for which he was 

compensated.21

Therefore, any income the Claimant lost on this project would have been due to the 

homeowners’ decision to build a different structure than the one proposed by the Claimant, and 

not due to effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Additionally, payments made to the Claimant for construction work on the pier and boathouse 

compensated the Claimant in excess of what he would have earned had the homeowner decided 

to pursue the Claimant’s originally proposed project. The Claimant provided a copy of a check, 

indicating that the homeowner paid the Claimant $6,180.00 for construction work.22 

In a letter dated 3 December 2011, the NPFC requested that the Claimant provide certain 

additional information, including a “breakdown of construction expenses (supplies and labor)” 

that the Claimant would have incurred during construction of the originally proposed project.23 

The Claimant responded via fax on 19 December 2011, and stated that he would have incurred 

costs of “$50,000.00 for supplies and labor.”24 The total price for the project, quoted on the 

proposal signed by the Claimant and the homeowner was $55,520.00.25 Therefore, had the 

homeowner chosen to proceed with the original proposal using the Claimant as the head 

contractor, the Claimant would have earned profits of approximately $5,520.00.26 Instead, the 

Claimant was paid $6,180.00 for construction work, and incurred no expenses for supplies or 

temporary labor.

27 Based on these numbers, the Claimant did not sustain a loss of profits due to 

the cancellation of the initial construction plan, but rather, earned greater profits than he would 

have had the project been constructed as the parties had originally intended.

2. Project 2

The second project was for construction of a pier in Point Clear, Alabama during the summer of 

2010. The proposal was signed on 8 June 2010 and indicated a contract price of $28,680.00.28 

The NPFC contacted the homeowner to discuss the homeowner’s reason for not pursuing the 

project. The homeowner stated that the pier was not built during the summer of 2010 due to 

concerns regarding the potential for hurricane damage.29 Upon further questioning, the 

homeowner indicated that the oil spill may have also factored into their decision to postpone 

construction. 30 The homeowner further indicated that the project has since been completed, but 

was unable to confirm whether or not the Claimant was involved in the construction.31 Based on 

19 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and Mr. deCelle, 29 November 2011. 20 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and Mr. deCelle, 29 November 2011. 21 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and Mr. deCelle, 29 November 2011. 22 Copy of check from Gregory T. DeCelle to the Claimant, 14 October 2010. 23 NPFC request for additional information, 3 December 2011. 24 Response to NPFC request for additional information, dated 15 December 2011. 25 Proposal signed by Mr. DeCelle, 15 April 2010. 26 $55,520.00 in revenue minus $50,000.00 in supply and labor costs. 27 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and the Claimant, 30 November 2011. 28 Proposal signed by Mr. Meador, 8 June 2010. 29 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and Ms. Meador, 28 November 2011. 30 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and Ms. Meador, 28 November 2011. 31 PHONECON: NPFC Staff and Ms. Meador, 28 November 2011.

 
this information, the Claimant has not sufficiently proven that the cancellation of this project was 

in fact due to effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and not other factors.

Based on the reasons outlined above, the remainder of this claim in the amount of $17,313.23 is 

denied, as the Claimant has not sufficiently demonstrated that he actually lost profits due to 

effects of the oil spill. Rather, it seems that projects were deferred temporarily, and any loss of 

income that the Claimant may have sustained on the projects was due to decisions by two 

homeowners to build piers other than the ones originally proposed by the Claimant. Therefore, 

the Claimant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the Claimant’s alleged loss is due 

to the injury, destruction or loss of property or natural resources as a result of a discharge or 

substantial threat of a discharge of oil.

Claim Supervisor: NPFC Claims Adjudication Division

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 12/22/11

Supervisor’s Action: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments: