3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION on RECONSIDERATION

Claim Number: 919031-0001 

Claimant: Great American Insurance Group (GAIC) / Tishman Speyer Properties 

Type of Claimant: RP

Type of Claim: Limit of Liability

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $578,752.02 

Action Taken: Offer in the Amount of $104,308.40 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On February 14, 2017, the S.S. PETER STUYVESANT (“STUYVESANT”) discharged oil 

into the Boston Harbor, a navigable waterway of the United States. At the time of discharge, the 

STUYVESANT was lying on the seafloor adjacent to Pier 4, Boston, MA.1 Tishman Speyer 

Properties, Inc. (“Tishman”), through its subsidiaries 130 Northern Avenue, LLC and 140 

Northern Avenue, LLC, responded and hired Cyn Environmental Services to clean up the oil 

spill.2

 The CG National Response Center (“NRC”) was notified of the incident.3 U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Boston (“CG Sector Boston”) also responded to oversee the pollution removal 

efforts of Tishman.4

 A dive survey of the vessel identified the source of the discharge as residual 

oil present in the boilers or fuel lines that fed the boilers on-board the STUYVESANT.5

 Due to 

the condition of the STUYVESANT and the consistency of the oil, a decision was made to 

remove the STUYVESANT in its entirety to mitigate any further threat of oil pollution into 

Boston Harbor.6

On May 5, 2017, CG Sector Boston personnel confirmed that the STUYVESANT had been 

successfully removed from the Boston Harbor and no further instances of oil discharge were 

observed originating from the site.7

 Tishman incurred all of the costs associated with the 

response and submitted a claim to Great American Insurance Company (“GAIC”) for 

reimbursement. GAIC reimbursed 130 Northern Avenue, LLC, and 140 Northern Avenue, LLC, 

through Tishman8 pursuant to the terms of their insurance policy excluding a $50,000 deductible. 

As a result, this claim was submitted by GAIC as well as 130 Northern Avenue, LLC and 140 

Northern Avenue, LLC, through Tishman, (collectively referred to as “Claimants”) requesting 

compensation for removal costs that exceed the applicable limit of liability. Claimants sought a 

sum of $572,071.94.9

 The NPFC thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

 

1 Haley Aldrich Incident Response Action Plan (IRA) dated April 13, 2017, page 3. Haley Aldrich is a Licensed Site 

Professional hired by Pier 4 Marina Owner, LLC, c/o Tishman Speyer to oversee the response and submit the IRA to 

the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

2 Claim submission dated August 7, 2019. See also CG POLREP 1 DTG R231605Z Feb 17. 3 National Response Center Report #1171066, reported on February 14, 2017 by Haley Aldrich, on behalf of 

Tishman Speyer.

4 CG POLREP 1 DTG R231605Z Feb 17.

5 Haley Aldrich Incident Response Action Plan (IRA) Completion Report dated December 21, 2017, page 2. 6 CG POLREP 2 DTG R241511Z Feb 17.

7 CG POLREP 8 DTG R051448Z May 17.

8 GAIC wire transfer to 130 Northern Avenue, LLC, through Tishman Speyer dated April 26, 2018.

9 The Claimants originally asserted that the S.S. PETER STUYVESANT was a 1,121 gross ton non-tank vessel and 

applied a limit of liability rate of $950.00 per gross ton to calculate their limit of liability of $1,064,950.00 (1,121 x 

950.00). Removing that limit of liability amount from the costs incurred by the Claimants resulted in a sum certain 

of $1,442,999.09 ($2,507,949.09 -$1,064,950.00). See claim submission dated August 7, 2019, page 4. The 

(b), (b) 

(6)

(b), (b) 

(6)
4

claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and concluded that Claimants demonstrated 

an entitlement to limited liability. Additionally, the NPFC determined that removal costs 

totaling $57,282.35 in removal costs in excess of the limit of liability were compensable and 

offered this amount as full and final compensation of this claim10 under the Oil Pollution Act 

(OPA).11 On September 21, 2020, the NPFC received the Claimants’ timely request for 

reconsideration.12 

 

Requests for reconsideration are considered de novo. The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed the 

original claim, the request for reconsideration, all information provided by the Claimants, 

information it obtained independently, and the applicable law and regulations. Upon 

reconsideration, the NPFC concludes that the facts established within the NPFC’s initial 

determination as well as information provided by the Claimants within their request for 

reconsideration support the Claimants’ request for reconsideration and offers to reimburse the 

Claimants $104,308.40 for uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of the oil spill 

incident, as outlined in the original determination and below. 

 

I. CLAIM HISTORY: 

 

On August 7, 2019, the Claimants presented a claim for entitlement to limited liability to 

the NPFC for $572,071.94.13 The NPFC thoroughly reviewed the original claim, all 

information provided by the Claimants or obtained independently, the relevant statutes and 

regulations, and ultimately determined that $57,282.35 of the $572,071.94 was compensable 

and denied the remainder of the claimed costs.14 The NPFC’s initial determination is hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

On September 21, 2020, the NPFC received the Claimants’ timely request for 

reconsideration.15 

 

Claimants subsequently revised their sum certain to $1,400,221.94 ($2,465,171.94 - $1,064,950.00) after identifying 

computation errors contained within their claimed removal costs. See, letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated 

February 12, 2020, page 1. Later, the Claimants acknowledged that the STUYVESANT was a 1721 gross ton nontank vessel and the limit of liability rate on February 14, 2017, was $1,100.00 which resulted in an applicable limit 

of liability of $1,893,100.00 (1721 GT x $1,100.00) and resulted in a revised sum certain totaling $572,071.94 

($2,465,171.94 - $1,893,100.00). See, email from Claimants to the NPFC dated June 8, 2020. 10 33 CFR 136.115. 11 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a) and 33 U.S.C. § 2704(a). 12 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated September 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated August 27, 2020. 13 The Claimants originally asserted that the S.S. PETER STUYVESANT was a 1,121 gross ton non-tank vessel and 

applied a limit of liability rate of $950.00 per gross ton to calculate their limit of liability of $1,064,950.00 (1,121 x 

950.00). Removing that limit of liability amount from the costs incurred by the Claimants resulted in a sum certain 

of $1,442,999.09 ($2,507,949.09 -$1,064,950.00). See claim submission dated August 7, 2019, page 4. The 

Claimants subsequently revised their sum certain to $1,400,221.94 ($2,465,171.94 - $1,064,950.00) after identifying 

computation errors contained within their claimed removal costs. See, letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated 

February 12, 2020, page 1. Later, the Claimants acknowledged that the STUYVESANT was a 1721 gross ton nontank vessel and the limit of liability rate on February 14, 2017, was $1,100.00 which resulted in an applicable limit 

of liability of $1,893,100.00 (1721 GT x $1,100.00) and resulted in a revised sum certain totaling $572,071.94 

($2,465,171.94 - $1,893,100.00). See, email from Claimants to the NPFC dated June 8, 2020. 14 NPFC determination issued to Great American Insurance Group (GAIC) / Tishman Speyer Properties dated 

August 27, 2020.

15 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated September 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated August 27, 2020.
5

II. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 The regulations implementing OPA require requests for reconsideration of an initial 

determination to be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, 

along with any additional support for the claim. The claimant has the burden of providing all 

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

When analyzing a request for reconsideration, the NPFC performs a de novo review of the entire 

claim submission, including any new information provided by the Claimant in support of its 

request for reconsideration. The written decision by the NPFC is final. 

On September 21, 2020, the Claimants timely submitted a request for reconsideration and 

provided information in support of costs denied by the NPFC totaling $55,659.09.16 The 

NPFC reviewed the information and requested clarification of certain costs contained within 

the request.17 The Claimants re-evaluated their costs and revised their request for 

reconsideration of costs denied to $48,044.53 after identifying mistakes within their request.18 

The Claimants also identified $6,680.08 in costs that they described as costs incurred by one 

of their contractors in response to the oil spill that were not included as uncompensated 

pollution removal costs within their original claim submission. As a result, the Claimants 

revised their sum certain to $578,752.02 to include these additional uncompensated pollution 

removal costs.19 The NPFC determined that it will consider these additional costs. The 

consideration of removal costs previously denied and submitted for reconsideration as well as 

the removal costs presented as new are addressed below. 

III. ANALYSIS ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: 

The regulations implementing OPA require requests for reconsideration of an initial 

determination to be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, 

along with any additional support for the claim in accordance with our governing claims 

regulations at 33 CFR 136.115(d). 

The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed and considered the Claimants’ request for 

reconsideration. As the claimants have met their burden by providing their factual or legal 

grounds for relief along with cost documentation to better support costs previously denied costs, 

the NPFC provides its analysis of costs below.

20

NPFC Master Cost Summary Spreadsheet (SS) Tab 4 – The Claimants requested 

reconsideration of lines 10 -14 in the amount of $4,442.80. Upon review, the NPFC agrees 

that the costs as presented are OPA compensable and offers $4,442.80 as compensation for 

costs incurred. 

 

16 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated September 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated August 27, 2020.

17 Email from the NPFC to the Claimants dated October 20, 2020. 18 Email from the Claimants to the NPFC dated October 20, 2020. 19 Letter from the Claimants to the NPFC dated October 27, 2020. The claimants provided a spreadsheet of denied 

costs in which they were seeking reconsideration. Specifically, the denied costs were grouped by tabs that 

corresponded directly with the tabs contained within the NPFC’s master cost summary spreadsheet. 

20 This analysis follows the format of the Claimants’ request for reconsideration and the NPFC’s master cost 

summary spreadsheet (NPFC SS).
6

NPFC SS Tab 5 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of line 17 in the amount of 

$760.24. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented are OPA compensable 

and offers $760.24 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 11 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 117 – 120 in the 

amount of $1,024.00. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented are OPA 

compensable and offers $1,024.00 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 20 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 11-14, 28-31, 43-46, 

and 59-63 in the amount of $15,580.91. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as 

presented are OPA compensable and offers $15,580.91 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 22 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 15 and 35 in the 

amount of $380.00. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented are OPA 

compensable and offers $380.00 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 24 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of line 157 in the amount of 

$2,061.91. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented are OPA compensable 

and offers $2,061.91 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 25 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of line 112 in the amount of 

$30.00. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented are OPA compensable and 

offers $30.00 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 29 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 30, 46, and 47 in the 

amount of $1,019.96. Upon review, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented are OPA 

compensable and offers $1,019.96 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 31 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 3-13, 40-49, 100, 104-

110 and 158-162 in the amount of $7,789.83. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing 

with increased labor rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, 

the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented for lines 3-13, 40-49, 100, and 104-110 are OPA 

compensable and offers $1,401.00 as compensation for costs incurred. The NPFC also finds 

that $5,973.35 of $6,388.83 for lines 158-162 are OPA compensable and offers compensation 

in that amount for costs incurred. The amount denied totals $415.48 and consists of $2.30 

for line 158, $412.64 for line 161 and the claimant had a $0.54 math error which is also 

denied. Denied costs are not supported by the record with itemized receipts.

NPFC SS Tab 32 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 3-4, 21-23, 28 and 52-

54 in the amount of $462.84. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with increased 

labor rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the NPFC 

agrees that the costs as presented for lines 3-4, 21-23, and 28 are OPA compensable and 

offers $273.00 as compensation for costs incurred. The NPFC also finds that $90.99 of 

$189.84 for lines 52-54 are OPA compensable and offers compensation in that amount for 

costs incurred. The amount denied totals $98.85 as the costs are not supported by the record 

with itemized receipts.

NPFC SS Tab 33 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 17-43, 67-78, 94 and 

96 in the amount of $5,716.15. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with 
7

increased labor rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the 

NPFC agrees that the costs as presented for lines 17-43 and 67-78 are OPA compensable 

and offers $5,555.50 as compensation for costs incurred. The NPFC also finds that $129.15 

of $160.65 for lines 94 and 96 are OPA compensable and offers compensation in that 

amount for costs incurred. The amount denied totals $31.50 for lines 94 and 96 as the costs 

are not supported by the record with itemized receipts.

NPFC SS Tab 34 – The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 3, 15-33, 62-64, 69, 

and 71-79 in the amount of $2,244.97. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with 

increased labor rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the 

NPFC agrees that the costs as presented for lines 3, 15-33, and 62-64 are OPA compensable 

and offers $1,915.00 as compensation for costs incurred. The NPFC denies all costs for 

lines 69 and 71-79 in the amount of $329.97 as the costs are not supported by the record 

with itemized receipts.

NPFC SS Tab 35 - The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 6-13 and 20-21 in the 

amount of $790.25. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with increased labor 

rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the NPFC agrees 

that the costs as presented for lines 6-13 are OPA compensable and offers $616.00 as 

compensation for costs incurred. The NPFC also finds that $37.80 of $174.25 requested for 

lines 20-21 are OPA compensable and offers compensation in that amount for costs 

incurred. The amount denied totals $136.45 for line 20 as no itemized receipt was provided. 

NPFC SS Tab 36 - The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 4-16, 25-33, 37, and 

39 in the amount of $1,941.67. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with 

increased labor rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the 

NPFC agrees that the costs as presented for lines 4-16 and 25-33 are OPA compensable and 

offers $1,925.50 as compensation for costs incurred. The NPFC also finds that $9.94 for 

line 37 is OPA compensable and offers compensation in that amount for costs incurred. The 

amount denied totals $6.23 for line 39 as no itemized receipt was provided.

NPFC SS Tab 37 - The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 9-30 and 48-50 in the 

amount of $1,758.00. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with increased labor 

rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the NPFC agrees 

that the costs as presented for lines 9-30 and 48-50 are OPA compensable and offers 

$1,758.00 as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 38 - The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 5-14 and 28 in the 

amount of $1,160.00. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with increased labor 

rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the NPFC agrees 

that the costs as presented for lines 5-14 and 28 are OPA compensable and offers $1,160.00 

as compensation for costs incurred. 

NPFC SS Tab 39 - The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 4-10 and 24 in the 

amount of $446.00. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with increased labor 

rates provided by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration, the NPFC agrees 

that the costs as presented for lines 4-10 and 24 are OPA compensable and offers $446.00 as 

compensation for costs incurred. 
8

NPFC Tab 40 - The Claimants requested reconsideration of lines 10-16 and 31-33 in the 

amount of $435.00. After receiving the complete rate sheet pricing with increased labor 

rates, the NPFC agrees that the costs as presented for lines 10-16 and 31-33 are OPA 

compensable and offers $435.00 as compensation for costs incurred. 

Costs presented as new - Within the Claimants’ request for reconsideration, the Claimants 

identified additional uncompensated removal costs incurred by ACD for dates worked from 

2/24/17 – 2/28/17 in the amount of $6,680.08 that were not included within their original claim 

submission. The Claimants submitted these costs to the NPFC in support of this invoice and 

amended their sum certain from $572,071.94 to $578,752.02 to include the addition of these 

removal costs.21 The additional removal costs were reviewed by the NPFC and approved up to 

the amount of reimbursement requested by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration 

for the costs incurred under ACD invoice for dates worked from 2/24/17 – 2/28/17.22 

IV. CONCLUSION:

 Upon reconsideration, the NPFC reviewed the revised costs submitted by the Claimants 

totaling $48,044.53; and offers reimbursement for costs totaling $47,026.05 and denies costs 

totaling $1,018.48. When added to the NPFC’s original offer of $57,282.35, the NPFC’s offer 

on reconsideration totals $104,308.40. As a result, the NPFC offers $104,308.40 as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the 

NPFC under claim # 919031-0001.23

This determination is a settlement offer;24 the claimants have 60 days in which to accept this 

offer. Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.25 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a 

 

21 Letter from the Claimants to the NPFC dated October 27, 2020. 

22 Within their original claim submission, the Claimants provided an Atlantic Coast Dismantling (ACD) invoice for 

dates worked from 2/24/17 – 2/28/17 totaling $113,908.98 and claimed $87,988.84 as uncompensated pollution 

removal costs. When adjudicating these costs, the NPFC approved $75,885.93 and denied $12,102.91 within their 

original determination. Within the Claimants’ request for reconsideration, the Claimants requested reimbursement of 

costs totaling $15,580.91 for this invoice and provided costs documentation in support that request. As the amount 

requested in reconsideration exceeded the amount previously denied, the NPFC contacted the Claimants for 

clarification. Upon review, the Claimants identified additional removal costs incurred by ACD for dates worked 

from 2/24/17 – 2/28/17 in the amount of $6,680.08 that weren’t included within their original claim submission. 

These additional removal costs were added to the Claimants’ sum certain and increased the amount incurred for the

ACD invoice from $87,988.84 to $94,668.92. 

 As discussed above, the NPFC offered the Claimants $75,885.93 for the costs incurred for the ACD invoice. 

Adding the $75,885.93 previously offered by the NPFC to the $15,580.91 requested by the Claimants within their 

request for reconsideration totals $91,466.84. However, the Claimants proved that they incurred a total of 

$94,466.84 for this invoice. The difference between $94,466.84 for costs incurred and $91,466.84 in costs requested 

by the Claimants within their request for reconsideration is $3,202.08. As presented, the $3,202.08 in costs are not 

eligible to the Claimants for reimbursement as the Claimants didn’t request reimbursement of these costs within 

their request for reconsideration. The NPFC contacted the Claimants and explained their inability to consider these 

costs. The NPFC also asked the Claimants if they wanted to include these costs and amend the amount requested 

within their request for reconsideration from $105,326.88 to $108,526.96 ($105,326.88 + $3,202.08). The 

Claimants declined. See, email from the Claimants to the NPFC dated October 28, 2020. 23 See NPFC Summary of Costs spread sheet dated November 4, 2020. 24 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the uncompensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also 
9

settlement offer at any time prior to acceptance.26 Moreover, this settlement offer is based upon 

the unique facts giving rise to this claim and is not precedential.

AMOUNT APPROVED: $104,308.40 

 

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: November 10, 2020

Supervisor Action: Revised offer on reconsideration approved 

 

constitutes an agreement by the claimant to assign the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant has 

against any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate 

reasonably with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the 

Fund. The cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation 

received from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, 

testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 33 CFR 136.115(a).

25 33 CFR 136.115(b). 26 Id. 

(b), (b) (6)

(

(b), (b) (6)