3

defined as “the costs of removal that are incurred after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any 

case in which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or 

mitigate oil pollution from an incident”.

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.103(d) no claim against the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in court to 

recover the same costs that are the subject of the claim. See also, 33 USC §2713(c) and 33 CFR 

136.103(c)(2) [claimant election]. 

33 U.S.C. §2713(d) provides that “If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of 

damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate compensation is 

unavailable, a claim for the uncompensated damages and removal costs may be presented to the 

Fund.” 

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 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category of 

uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. In addition, under 33 CFR 

136, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal actions were reasonable in response to 

the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the authority and responsibility to perform a 

reasonableness determination. Specifically, under 33 CFR 136.203, “a claimant must establish -

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the 

incident;

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions;

(c) That the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC.”

Under 33 CFR 136.205 “the amount of compensation allowable is the total of uncompensated 

reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional 

circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated 

with the FOSC.” [Emphasis added]. 

Damage claims must be presented within 3 years after the date on which the injury and its 

connection with the discharge in question were reasonably discoverable with the exercise of due 

care. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(2).

The pertinent provisions of the regulations specifically relating to property damage claims 

follow:
4

33 CFR §136.213 Authorized claimants. 

(a) A claim for injury to, or economic losses resulting from the destruction of, real or personal 

property may be presented only by a claimant either owning or leasing the property. 

(b) Any claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury to, destruction 

of, or loss of real or personal property must be included as subpart of the claim under this section 

and must include the proof required under §136.233. 

33 CFR §136.215 Proof. 

(a) In addition to the requirements of subparts A and B of this part, a claimant must establish— 

(1) An ownership or leasehold interest in the property; 

(2) That the property was injured or destroyed; 

(3) The cost of repair or replacement; and

(4) The value of the property both before and after injury occurred. 

33 CFR §136.217 Compensation allowable. 

(a) The amount of compensation allowable for damaged property is the lesser of— 

(1) Actual or estimated net cost of repairs necessary to restore the property to substantially the 

same condition which existed immediately before the damage;

(2) The difference between value of the property before and after the damage; or

(3) The replacement value.

DETERMINATION: 

The Claimants seek compensation for costs to remove oil from their boat and for costs to replace 

oiled property attached to their boat. In support of their claim, they provided correspondence 

between them and the responsible party, and they provided three photographs of a sailboat. This 

documentation is insufficient to support payment of the claim. 

By letter dated June 7, 2018, the NPFC requested additional information from the claimants. On 

June 19, 2018, Mr called and left a voice message stating that he’d need more time to 

respond. The claims manager returned his call on July 3, and left a message informing Mr. 

 that he could have more time to respond provided that he let us know how much time he 

needed and a justification for the time. No further contact was made until July 6, 2018, when 

Mr. left a voice message stating that he was going to withdraw his claim and try to work 

with the hotel to resolve his losses. On July 10, the claims manager again called and spoke with 

Mr. to explain that the withdrawal request needed to be in writing and that Mr. 

should email the claims manager stating that he wanted to withdraw the claim. The claims 

manager informed Mr. that he could resubmit the claim within the statutory period of 

limitations. To date, the NPFC has not received a withdrawal request. On July 17, 2018, the 

claims manager called and left a voice message requesting Mr. to email his request to 

withdrawal the claim.1

 

 

1 All correspondence after the June 7, NPFC letter requesting additional information have been telephonic. The 

claimant has not provided an email address for communication purposes.