CLAIM SUMMARY/DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number N10036-1519

Claimant Robert H. Keepin

Type of Claimant Private (US)

Type of Claim Loss of Profits and Impairment of Earnings Capacity

Amount Requested $10,375.00

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 20 October 2011, Robert H. Keepin (the Claimant) presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF) for $10,375.00 for loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity 

resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The claim includes $375.00 for gasoline used by 

the Claimant “to find work.”

The Claimant works as a painter for Stokes Painting, Inc. (Stokes) in Cantonment, Florida.1

 He 

has worked for Stokes for at least six years.2

 Stokes paints the interiors and exteriors of new 

subdivision homes.3

 The subdivisions are located from almost the Mississippi State Line to 

Crestview, Florida.4

 The Claimant injured one of his wrists on the job in February 2008 and 

collected workers compensation.5

 In December 2009 he underwent another surgery on his wrist 

and went back on workers compensation.6

 In March 2010 the Claimant returned to work.7 The 

Claimant stated that, after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, business declined and he had a loss of 

earnings. 

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. 

1 Letter from Stokes Painting, Inc, Claimant’s employer, explaining employment dated 10 January 2011 2 Letter from Stokes Painting, Inc, Claimant’s employer, explaining employment dated 10 January 2011

3 Telephone conversation between Claimant’s representative and NPFC Claims Adjuster 26 Octobe-02 November 

2011

4 Map of the Gulf Coast with comment on subdivisions locations

5 Telephone conversation between Claimant’s representative and NPFC Claims Adjuster 26 Octobe-02 November 

2011

6 Telephone conversation between Claimant’s representative and NPFC Claims Adjuster 26 Octobe-02 November 

2011

7 Telephone conversation between Claimant’s representative and NPFC Claims Adjuster 26 Octobe-02 November 

2011 and copies of checks from Guarantee Insurance Company, workers compensation insurer, for 2010

 
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 

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, Claimant submitted the following documentation:

• Optional OSLTF Claims Form signed by Claimant

• Claimant’s letter dated 11 October 2011 to NPFC explaining claim

• GCCF 2000-C GCCF Claim Form for Six-Month Emergency Advance

• GCCF Denial Letter for Emergency Advance dated 06 December 2010

• Letter from Stokes Painting, Inc, Claimant’s employer, explaining employment dated 10 

January 2011

• Map of the Gulf Coast with comment on subdivisions locations

• GCCF 2000-I GCCF Interim Claim Form

• GCCF Letter dated 24 January 2011 concerning Interim Payment claim
• GCCF Letter of 29 January 2011 explaining Interim or Final Claim submission

• Claimant’s letter dated 03 February 2011 explaining claim

• GCCF Denial Letter on Interim Payment/Final Payment Claim dated 15 April 2011, 30 

July 2011 and 05 August 2011

• Index of Contents of Package for Interim Claim filing

• Letter from Stokes Painting, Inc, Claimant’s employer, explaining employment dated 18 

November 2010

• Claimant’s letter to GCCF dated 10 December 2010 authorizing GCCF to discuss the 

claim with his wife

• Claimant’s letter dated 10 January 2011 concerning who he worked for

• W-2 from Total LC, Inc for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

• W-2 from Employee Leasing Solutions for 2010

• Copies Claimant’s pay stubs from Stokes Painting for 2010

• Copies of checks from Guarantee Insurance Company, workers compensation insurer, for 

2010

• Form 1040 Income Tax Return for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

• Employee Payroll History from Total Leasing, a payroll preparer, for 2008, 2009 and 

2010

On 26 October 2011, the NPFC sent the Claimant a letter requesting additional information in 

order to further evaluate the claim. On 28 October 2011, the Claimant responded to the request.8

Based upon the GCCF documentation submitted by the Claimant, before presenting the claim to 

the NPFC, the Claimant filed an Emergency Advance Payment (EAP) with the GCCF in the 

amount of $3,952.00. The claim was assigned Claimant ID #3339514 and claim #398392.

9 The 

EAP claim was denied on 06 December 2010.

10 Additionally, Claimant filed three Interim 

Payment claims (ICQ12011 for $4,004.00) (ICQ32011 for $10,000.00) and (ICQ32011 for an 

undetermined amount) with the GCCF. The claims were assigned claims #9226217, #9424776 

and #9427644 respectively.

11 The three interim claims were denied on 15 April 2011, 30 July 

2011 and 05 August 2011, respectively.

12

Based upon the evidence provided by the Claimant, it appears that the subject matter of the 

GCCF claims is the same as the subject matter of the claim before the NPFC, i.e., Claimant lost 

earnings as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The NPFC deems the GCCF claims to be 

properly presented to the Responsible Party and to the NPFC, but only to the extent that the 

amount of the claims presented to the Responsible Party are equal to or greater than the sum 

certain amount presented to the NPFC, i.e. $10,000.00. Accordingly, this Claim Summary 

Determination for NPFC Claim N10036-1519 considers and addresses the loss of earnings up to 

the amount of $10,000.00 for GCCF Claim #398392, #9226217, #9424776 and #9427644.

NPFC Determination

This claim is denied. 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 or destruction or loss of real or personal 

property or a natural resource as a result of a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. 

Claims for OPA damages must be presented first to the responsible party pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 

8 Telephone conversation between Claimant and NPFC Claims Adjuster 26 October 2011 9 GCCF On-Line Claim Status 10 GCCF Denial Letter dated 06 December 2010 11 GCCF On-Line Claim Status 12 GCCF Denial Letters dated 15 April 2011, 30 July 2011 and 05 August 2011

 
136.103(a). 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. 

This claim is denied for three reasons. First, the claim is denied in the amount of $375.00 

because the evidence provided only establishes that he presented losses to the GCCF in the 

amount of $10,000.00. Any amount presented to the NPFC that is greater than that presented to 

the RP is deemed not properly presented and is denied pursuant to 33 CFR 136.103(a).

Second, the evidence does not establish the causal relationship between the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill and the Claimant’s alleged losses. A claimant must prove that his alleged loss is due to 

the injury to, destruction of or loss of real or personal property or natural resources. Here, the 

Claimant’s evidence does not establish that his loss is due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as 

opposed to a myriad of other factors, including an overall economic decline and a reduction in 

the housing market, including the market for newly built homes which were the Claimant’s 

primary specialty. While the letter from his employer is helpful in understanding that the 

Claimant lost work, it does not establish either that Stokes Painting Company or the Claimant 

lost profits or earnings due to the oil spill.

13 

Third, assuming that the Claimant had established the causal connection between his job loss and 

the Deepwater Horizon incident, the documentation submitted by the Claimant does not support 

a loss of earnings in the amount of $10,000.00.

14 

This claim is denied for the foregoing reasons.

Claim Supervisor: NPFC Claims Adjudication Division

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 11/7/11

Supervisor’s Action: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments:

13 Letter from Stokes Painting, Inc, Claimant’s employer, explaining employment dated 10 January 2011 14 OSLTF Claims Form signed by Claimant