CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N10036-1562

Claimant : RTI Transport, LLC

Type of Claimant : Private (US)

Type of Claim : Loss of Profits and Earning Capacity

Amount Requested : $760,000.00

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 15 November 2011, Beverly Thomas, on behalf of RTI Transport, LLC (collectively, the 

Claimant) presented an Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking $760,000.00 in loss of profits and impairment 

of earnings capacity that allegedly resulted from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Claimant was in the process of starting up a 

business as a freight broker for the transport of seafood. 1

 The Claimant stated that there was an 

agreement in place with Motivatit Seafood, LLC (Motivatit) to provide 3-6 reefer trucks per 

week to haul seafood from Louisiana to California, and then have those trucks return goods from 

California back to Louisiana.2

 The Claimant planned to take a 20% brokers fee on each truck, 

both to California and on the return trip.3

 The Claimant asserted that, due to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, the oyster beds used by Motivatit were damaged.4

 Consequently, the Claimant 

was unable to schedule any seafood trips to California and experienced a significant loss of 

revenue.5 

The Claimant provided the following explanation regarding the calculation of her sum certain of 

$760,000.00: the Claimant stated that the business was due to make weekly revenues of 

$10,200.00 and the Claimant multiplied this figure by the number of weeks that her business 

would have been in operation since the beginning of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 6

 

Prior to presenting this claim to the NPFC, the Claimant filed a claim with BP on 26 May 2010.7

 

The Claimant did not receive payment from BP.8 Additionally; the Claimant filed a six month 

1 Letter from the Claimant to BP dated 09 July 2010.

2 Letter from the Claimant to BP dated 09 July 2010.

3 Letter from the Claimant to BP dated 09 July 2010.

4 Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form, dated 25 October 2011.

5 Letter from the Claimant to BP dated 09 July 2010. 6 GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form.

7 Report from the GCCF dated 21 February 2012. 

 
Emergency Advance Payment (EAP) claim with the GCCF for loss of profits on 23 August 2010

in the amount of $878,400.00.9

 The Claimant was assigned Claimant ID # 1121217 and Claim # 

9023. The claim was denied by the GCCF on 04 December 2010.10 The Claimant also filed an 

Interim Payment Claim Quarter I (ICQ12011) with the GCCF for loss of profits on 02 February 

2011 in the amount of $438,600.00.11 The Claimant was assigned Claim ID # 9269045. The 

ICQ12011claim was denied on 20 August 2011.12 The Claimant also filed an Interim Payment 

Claim Quarter IV 2011 (ICQ42011A) with the GCCF for loss of profits on 26 October 2011 in 

the amount of $760,000.00.13 The Claimant was assigned Claim ID # 9523120. The 

ICQ42011A was denied on 02 November 2011.14 Lastly, the Claimant filed an Interim Payment 

Claim Quarter IV 2011 (ICQ42011B) with the GCCF for real or personal property damage on 26 

October 2011.15 The Claimant was assigned Claim ID # 9524324. The ICQ42011B was denied 

by the GCCF on 29 December 2011.16

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

On April 19, 2012, the Claimant sent a request for reconsideration to the NPFC stating she would 

like the NPFC to reconsider her claim. 

The NPFC denied the claim originally on March 5, 2012 on the basis that the Claimant failed to 

prove that she suffered a financial loss due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Claimant 

asserted that, due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, her business was not able to undertake the 

shipping of oysters from Louisiana to California on behalf of Motivatit.17 The Claimant’s 

submission included an unsigned shipping agreement between Motivatit and the Claimant.18 In 

an effort to verify the Claimant’s assertions, the NPFC contacted Motivatit. 

The NPFC was informed that although the Claimant had contacted Motivatit regarding obtaining 

oysters for transport, the Claimant never entered into a contract or had engaged in the process of 

bidding for oyster transportation contracts. 19 Indeed, the NPFC was informed that the 

Claimant’s business was listed in Motivatit’s computer system, but that this does not guarantee 

any business relationship with the company. Instead, it merely indicates that the Claimant has 

availed itself as eligible for bidding.20 Additionally, any bid that the Claimant would have made 

would have been evaluated against bids submitted by other companies, with the lowest bid 

winning the contract for oyster transport.21 Thus, the Claimant had no guaranteed contractual 

relationship with Motivatit and could not depend on Motivatit to provide oysters for the Claimant 

to haul to California regardless of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Furthermore, the Claimant failed to prove that she had obtained the required broker authority to 

conduct interstate shipping as mandated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

8 Report from the GCCF dated 21 February 2012.

9 Report from the GCCF dated 21 February 2012..

10 GCCF Denial Letter dated 04 December 2010. 11 Report from the GCCF dated 21 February 2012.. 12 GCCF Denial Letter dated 20 August 2011. 13 Report from the GCCF dated 21 February 2012. 14 GCCF Denial letter dated 02 November 2011. 15 Report from the GCCF dated 21 February 2012. 16 GCCF Denial Letter, dated 29 December 2011. 17 Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form, dated 25 October 2011. 18 Contract Carrier Transportation Agreement [unsigned] dated 03 April 2010. 19 PHONECON between the NPFC and Motivatit dated 15 December 2011. 20 PHONECON between the NPFC and Motivatit dated 15 December 2011. 21 PHONECON between the NPFC and Motivatit dated 15 December 2011.

 
(FMCSA).22 The NPFC contacted the FMCSA to inquire as to the necessary licensing needed 

by the Claimant to broker shipping for the interstate shipment of seafood. The FMCSA 

confirmed the necessity for the Claimant to obtain broker authority, as well as confirming that 

there is no record of the Claimant possessing this authority.23 Thus, there is no evidence that the 

Claimant was authorized to conduct the business for which she is claiming damages. 

This claim was denied because (1) the Claimant failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that 

there was a loss in the amount claimed, and (2) failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that the 

alleged loss was 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.

RECONSIDERATION CLAIM ANALYSIS: 

The Claimant requested reconsideration which was received by the NPFC on April 19, 2012. 

The Claimant provided a one-page letter that requested her claim be reconsidered for the 

following reasons:

1. The Claimant states the NPFC never spoke with the representative that had agreed to use 

her trucks to transport oysters for Motivatit Seafood. Claimant asserts that Kevin Voison, 

VP for Motivatit at the time, was who guaranteed to use her trucks despite there not being 

an executed contract. Claimant states Mr. Voison has agreed to speak with the NPFC 

should the NPFC call him for verification;

2. The Claimant asserts that she was told by Mr. Richard Gordon that he was called by the 

NPFC and was advised about the questions the NPFC asked of him. The Claimant also 

asserts in her reconsideration letter that Mr. Gordon stated the NPFC said he should apply 

for a loss since he went out of business for the same reason. The Claimant states the 

NPFC’s denial determination did not mention that the NPFC spoke with Mr. Gordon; and

3. The Claimant asserts that as far as a bond goes with respect to her shipping business, as 

long as the bond was paid before trucks were running, there would be no problem. The 

Claimant also asserted that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is what prevented her from 

getting the required bond because the job she was going to do vanished when the oyster 

industry was damaged.

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. 

22 Form OP-1 as downloaded from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/print-forms/print-forms htm (last 

accessed 16 December 2011).

23 PHONECON between the NPFC and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration dated 29 November 2011.

 
The NPFC performed a complete review of the documentation presented by the Claimant. The 

request for reconsideration was a one-page letter with no new information other than the name of 

Kevin Voison who was the VP at Motivatit during the initial contract negotiations with the 

Claimant. The NPFC contacted Mr. Kevin Voison on May 2, 2012. Mr. Voison confirmed that 

Motivatit was in the middle of negotiations with the Claimant in consideration of her brokering

trucks to transport oysters in 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred. Mr. Voison 

stated he thought the negotiations would have gone through had the oil spill not occurred.

Mr. Voison stated that he believed that the negotiation was going to be for some new routes and 

some existing routes in California that Motivatit had set up. Mr. Voison stated that he had not 

had any business dealings with the Claimant previously and that the contract in question was 

never in fact signed therefore the sales staff would not have known anything about the 

negotiations that were going on at the time of the oil spill between the Claimant and Mr. Voison. 

He did confirm that since the Claimant was new, and if they had moved forward hiring her as a 

broker transporting oysters, she would have had to do a sample run to make sure she could in 

fact handle the business.

Mr. Voison stated that negotiations may have lasted another month or so if the oil spill had not 

occurred and business would have started soon after the contract completion. Mr. Voison stated 

that after the oil spill, they ended all new runs and limited the existing runs. He confirmed he is 

no longer with the company and does not have specifics associated with the pricing details, etc of 

the Claimant’s contract and that the NPFC would need to obtain that information from the 

Claimant.

With respect to the Claimant’s assertion that the NPFC did not mention in its original denial 

determination that it had spoken with Mr. Richard Gordon, the NPFC confirms that assertion to 

be correct. The NPFC did speak with Mr. Gordon on December 9, 2011 regarding his business 

relationship with the Claimant. Mr. Gordon informed the NPFC that he was originally going to 

provide the trucks and hauling to and from California for the Claimant had she secured the 

business deal with Motivatit. He stated he was going to provide two trucks, one of which he was 

going to drive himself and the other he was going to provide the driver for it.

Mr. Gordon stated he did not have a contract with the Claimant but did have a verbal agreement 

with her for their business arrangement had she been able to secure the route to California 

transporting oysters for Motivatit. Mr. Gordon stated he completed the insurance paperwork and 

other forms that would have been needed to haul seafood. Mr. Gordon stated that he was 

‘physically’ in Louisiana at the time of the oil spill and was ‘standing by’ awaiting word on 

whether or not he would be haul oysters to California for the Claimant.

Mr. Gordon advised the NPFC that the arrangement between he and the Claimant would have 

been a lucrative one therefore he decided to wait and see what the affects of the oil spill were 

going to be but ultimately he had to abandon the arrangement because there were no oysters to 

haul. With respect to the alleged pricing for his arrangement with the Claimant, he stated they 

worked out pricing for the oysters and also agreed on the Claimant reimbursing him a fuel 

surcharge based on a national rate. With respect to return trips from California to Louisiana, Mr. 

Gordon stated that the Claimant was going to work on arrangements for him to haul produce 

from California to Houston and then carry empty cargo from Houston to Louisiana. Mr. Gordon 

closed by stating that in either case, the Claimant would receive a % of the haul profit from the 

return trip. He also stated that as far as he knew, the Claimant was registered with the proper 

regulatory authorities but that he did not inspect actual licenses.

Upon receipt of the information from Mr. Gordon, the NPFC was able to determine that 

negotiations had taken place between the Claimant and Mr. Gordon for the hauling of oysters 

had the Claimant been able to secure a California route with Motivatit although actual costs were 
never established and as such, there was no evidence that the Claimant would have definitively 

secured any California routes until after a contract was executed and a sample route was 

completed to ensure the Claimant’s ability to perform the runs for Motivatit to their satisfaction.

Finally, the Claimant asserts that with respect to a bond requirement to transport oysters, she 

asserts that as long as the bond was paid prior to transport, there would not have been any 

problems. The NPFC has no comment on the validity of this statement made by the Claimant. 

The NPFC can only confirm that it spoke with the regulatory authority, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, who confirmed the Claimant would need to obtain broker 

authority and that as of November 29, 2011; no such request had been made by the Claimant for 

the transport of oysters.

In consideration of the arguments and information provided by the Claimant on reconsideration, 

the NPFC has determined that the Claimant has provided no new information that would 

persuade the NPFC to change its original denial determination. While the Claimant has 

established the fact that there had been negotiations between the Claimant and Motivatit for the 

possible transport of oysters from Louisiana to California, that negotiation never came to fruition 

nor were there any guarantees since the Claimant never made a sample run to demonstrate to 

Motivatit that it was capable to perform the runs as would have been expected. Based on the 

foregoing information, this claim is denied upon reconsideration because (1) the Claimant again 

failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that there was a loss in the amount claimed since she 

was a start up business with no price guarantees, and (2) the Claimant failed to meet her burden 

to demonstrate that the alleged loss was 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: Thomas Morrison

Date of Supervisor’s review: 5/16/12

Supervisor Action: Denial on reconsideration approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 
U.S. Department of

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

United States Coast Guard

National Pollution Funds Center

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CA)

Phone: 800-280-7118

E-mail: 

@uscg.mil

Fax: 703-872-6113

5890 

5/16/2012 

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Number: 7011 1570 0001 4802 9839

 

RTI Transport, LLC

ATTN: 

PO Box 747

Houma, LA 70361

RE: Claim Number: N10036-1562 

Dear : 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 

33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. (OPA) and the associated regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 136, denies 

payment on claim number N10036-1562 involving the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Please see 

the enclosed Claim Summary/Determination Form for further explanation. 

Disposition of this reconsideration constitutes final agency action.

Sincerely, 

Thomas S. Morrison

Chief, Claims Adjudication Division

U.S. Coast Guard

Encl: Claim Summary / Determination Form