CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : N10036-1610

Claimant : Alvin Kinler

Type of Claimant : Private (US)

Type of Claim : Loss of Profits and Earning Capacity

Amount Requested : $118,800.00

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 December 2011, Steven F. Griffith Sr., attorney for Alvin J. Kinler, (collectively, the 

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

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking $118,800.00 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 employed by Houma Industries 

as a salesman in the southeast Louisiana region.1

 The Claimant asserts that due to the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, his customers in the oil and gas industries have cancelled and reduced 

projects. 2

 

As a result of the reduced number of customers, he suffered reduced salary and reduced 

commission and these reductions affected his overall income.3

 Claimant asserted that his former 

place of employment, Houma Industries, made reductions in salary and commission due to the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.4 Claimant was dismissed from his employment with Houma

Industries in November 2010. 

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

$118,800.00: the Claimant listed his previous job’s monthly earnings of $9,550.00 and 

subtracted his new job’s earnings of $6,250.00 for a difference of $3,300.00.5

 He then 

multiplied this by twelve representing one full year’s lost compensation of $39,600.00.6

 He then 

multiplied this number by three, representing three years of lost wages for a total of 

$118,800.00.7 The Claimant then adopted this number as his sum certain.8

1 GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form dated 15 February 2011.

2 GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form dated 15 February 2011. 3 GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form dated 15 February 2011.

4 GCCF Interim Payment Claim Form dated 15 February 2011.

5 Document titled ‘Recap of Losses for the Claimant’.

6 Document titled ‘Recap of Losses for the Claimant’. 7 Document titled ‘Recap of Losses for the Claimant’.

 
Prior to presenting this claim to the NPFC, the Claimant filed an Emergency Advance Payment 

Six Months Claim (EAP) with the GCCF for loss of profits and impairment of earnings capacity 

on 29 September 2010 in the amount of $19,461.76.9

 The Claimant was assigned Claimant ID # 

3049862 and Claim ID # 103940. The EAP was denied.10 Additionally, the Claimant filed an 

Interim Payment Claim Quarter II 2011 (ICQ22011) with the GCCCF for loss of profits and 

impairment of earnings capacity on 20 April 2011 in the amount of $118,800.00.11 The 

Claimant was assigned Claim ID # 9363254. The ICQ22011 was denied on 20 September 

2011.12

The NPFC contacted Houma Industries to verify the Claimant’s assertions. Houma Industries 

informed the NPFC that the moratorium involving offshore drilling put in place after the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill directly impacted the company.13 Further, “in November 2010 the 

owners of Houma Industries, Inc. made the decision to cease all operations and began the 

process of permanent closure. While the BP Oil Spill in April 2010 did have a significant impact 

on the business operations of the company and contributed to the decision to close the business, 

the decision was not entirely based on or directly related to the oil spill.” 14

Based on this information the NPFC determined that the Claimant’s alleged loss of profits was 

not 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. The NPFC denied the claim on March 8, 2012. 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

The Claimant requested reconsideration via his legal representative, Mr. Steven Griffith, which 

was received by the NPFC on April 4, 2012 via certified mail. The Claimant provided a onepage letter requesting reconsideration. The Claimant provided a copy of an email trail between 

Mr. Manix, CFO of Houma Industries, LLC and the NPFC dated February 13, 2012.15 The 

email from Mr. Manix to the NPFC was in response to a summary email Mr. Manix had 

originally received from the NPFC dated February 10, 2012 recapping a phone conversation 

LCDR Fisher had with Mr. Manix originally on February 10, 2012 regarding the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill and effects upon Houma Industries, LLC.

The Claimant asserts on reconsideration that “the email makes it unequivocally clear that BP 

played a major part in the termination of Mr. Kinler’s position with his company.”16 

Additionally, the Claimant asserts that other people who were similarly situated with Mr. Kinler 

have been paid by BP large compensation figures for not being able to work after the BP 

explosion.

NPFC Determination on Reconsideration

8 Document titled ‘Recap of Losses for the Claimant’; Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed 06 December 2011 and 

received 15 December 2011.

9 Report from the GCCF dated 16 February 2012.

10 Report from the GCCF dated 16 February 2012. 11 Report from the GCCF dated 16 February 2012. 12 GCCF Denial Letter dated 20 September 2011. 13 PHONECON between the NPFC and Houma Industries dated 10 February 2012. 14 Email between the Claimant and Houma Industries dated 13 February 2012. 15 This February 13, 2012 e-mail is discussed above. 16 March 22, 2012 letter from Mr. Griffith, Sr. requesting reconsideration of the claim. 

 
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 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. 

The Claimant based his request for reconsideration on the February 13, 2012 e-mail between 

Houma Industries and the NPFC. This e-mail was in the administrative record and considered by 

the NPFC when it determined to deny the claim on March 8, 2012; therefore, Claimant provided 

no new information on reconsideration. 

Additionally, the February 13, 2012 e-mail notes that Houma Industries took a certain position in 

2011 in responding to claims by employees for compensation related to the BP Oil Spill. “Any 

employee claims were totally independent of the company and the company took no position on 

the propriety of the claims.” Therefore, the February 13, 2012 e-mail does not provide support 

for Claimant’s assertion that other people similarly situated with the Claimant received large 

compensation figures for not being able to work after the oil spill because Houma Industries 

remained independent as to its employees’ claims to BP and/or GCCF. 

Further, even if Claimant would be entitled to reimbursement (and he is not), he asserts that he 

lost $118,800 in lost profits. He calculated the difference between his salary and commissions in 

2009 (at Houma Industries) and his lost salary for November and December 2010 to his 

prospective salary and commissions at his new employment. He then multiplied the difference by 

three, calculating a three-year projected loss. Claimant was unemployed from November 2011 to 

January 2012, or approximately two months; his three-year alleged loss is projected into the 

future. OPA provides that the Fund is available to reimburse claimants for uncompensated

removal costs and damages; it is not available to pay future alleged damages. 

Based on the above the claim is denied on reconsideration. 

Claim Supervisor: Thomas Morrison

Date of Supervisor’s review: 4/17/12

Supervisor Action: Denial on reconsideration approved

Supervisor’s Comments: