1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

DEWEY DESTIN, an individual; and 

EDGEWATER BEACH OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC. a Florida 

condominium owners association, on their 

own behalf and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. CASE NO. 

 

 CLASS ACTION 

BP, PLC; BP PRODUCTS NORTH 

AMERICA, INC.; BP AMERICA, INC.; 

TRANSOCEAN, LTD.; TRANSOCEAN 

OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, 

INC.; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, 

INC.; HALLIBURTON ENERGY 

SERVICES, INC. and CAMERON 

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 

F/K/A COOPER CAMERON 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COME NOW, Plaintiffs DEWEY DESTIN and EDGEWATER BEACH OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated 

(“Plaintiffs”) and file this action against Defendants, BP, PLC; BP PRODUCTS NORTH 

AMERICA, INC.; BP AMERICA, INC.; TRANSOCEAN, LTD.; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE 

DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.; TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC.; HALLIBURTON 

ENERGY SERVICES, INC. and CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION F/K/A 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 21
2

COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION, collectively referred to herein after as “Defendants” 

and allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a class action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to address shared concerns within the class area resulting from the massive approaching oil slick 

created by Defendants. Defendants, through their action and inaction, have caused and are 

causing discharges of pollutants from the now destroyed Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore 

drilling unit beginning with the explosion of April 20, 2010. Plaintiffs and others similarly 

situated within coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties desperately do not want their priceless 

local environmental heritage and hard-earned private properties and businesses invaded by 

Defendants’ pollutants. 

2. Coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties are contiguous counties with citizenry 

having common claims for relief arising from the approaching environmental disaster caused by 

Defendants. Most importantly at this time, this citizenry can and should be commonly protected 

against this environmental disaster, using Defendants’ funds, to lessen damages arising from the 

oil spill. 

3. Historically and economically, coastal Okaloosa and Walton Counties share a 

host of unique ties, including frequently noted world-class sugar sand beaches, a regional airport 

that is a major shared tourist conduit, the Greater Destin metropolitan area, the renowned Destin 

fishing fleet and adjacent near shore and offshore Gulf fishing areas, and a shared community 

college. 

4. Critically for near term purposes, physically these counties border the Gulf of 

Mexico to the immediate south and are conjoined in an east-west direction by 25-mile wide 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 21
3

Choctawhatchee Bay. The Bay’s sole direct surface water connection to the Gulf of Mexico is 

the extremely narrow East Pass (also known as Destin Pass) in Okaloosa County. Further, the 

Choctawhatchee River and numerous local bayous and other tributaries receive tidal flows from 

Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico through East Pass. 

5. Defendants can and should immediately bring to the scene, or provide funding for 

the class under Court oversight to bring to the scene, protective barriers to be on hand to put in 

place across Destin Pass, across Santa Rosa Sound to the west, and along oceanfront Okaloosa 

and Walton counties beginning immediately east of the Air Force property on Santa Rosa Island. 

While the damage from the approaching disaster would still be significant, properly designed 

barriers could allow Plaintiffs and the class to avoid or minimize substantial irreparable harm and 

minimize the damages. 

6. Further, this class should be entitled to have reliable and trustworthy class 

representatives of good reputation and unquestionable ties to this immediate and unique class 

area. The class also needs qualified counsel committed to the class area, and advocating for the 

full gamut of relief the class truly wants and needs. 

7. Now is not the time for this distinct, pristine, and somewhat protectable class area 

to be unnecessarily placed at further risk or lost in the shuffle of competing statewide or out-ofstate class actions solely focused on collecting money damages in the distant future. To assure 

that this class is protected, and its unique needs represented with due expediency, this class 

should be quickly given separate treatment from those pure damage class actions that ultimately 

may be recognized in the wake of this disaster. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 21
4

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff DEWEY DESTIN is an individual residing in Destin, Florida, who owns 

waterfront real property located on Joe’s Bayou within the tidal influence of Choctawhatchee 

Bay, is a member of the pioneer family after whom Destin is named, and is a life-long resident of 

Okaloosa County and serves on the Destin City Council. Dewey Destin owns and operates 

various businesses and restaurants in Destin, Florida associated with the tourism, fishing and 

seafood industries. 

 9. Plaintiff, EDGEWATER BEACH OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (“EBOA”) is 

a Florida corporation which operates as a condominium association and which has its principal 

place of business in Walton County, Florida. EBOA is located and owns Gulf front real property 

in Miramar Beach, Walton County, Florida. 

10. Defendant BP, PLC (“BP”) is a foreign corporation doing business in the State of 

Florida. 

11. Defendant BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC. (“BP Products”) is a 

foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida. 

12. Defendant BP AMERICA, INC. (“BP America”) is a foreign corporation doing 

business in the State of Florida. 

13. Defendant TRANSOCEAN, LTD. (“Transocean, Ltd.”) is a foreign corporation 

doing business in the State of Florida. 

14. Defendant TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC. 

(“Transocean Offshore”) is a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida. 

15. Defendant TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC. (“Transocean Deepwater”) is a 

foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 21
5

16. Defendant HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. (“Halliburton”) is a 

foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida. 

17. Defendant CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION F/K/A COOPER 

CAMERON CORPORATION (“Cameron”) is a foreign corporation doing business in the State 

of Florida. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. This Court has jurisdiction over this class action: under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because 

the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and because there is 

complete diversity of parties; under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claims asserted herein arise 

under the laws of the United States of America, including the laws of the State of Florida, which 

have been declared, pursuant to 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (f)(1) and 1333(a)(2), to be the law of the 

United States for that portion of the outer Continental Shelf from which the oil spill originated; 

under 43 U.S.C. § 1331(1), which extends exclusive federal jurisdiction to the outer Continental 

Shelf; and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, which provides for federal declaratory actions and 

related relief. 

 19. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because a substantial 

portion of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein, and all of the 

property that is the subject of this action, lie in this district. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20. A massive and ongoing oil spill that resulted from the explosion and fire aboard, 

and subsequent sinking of the oil rig Deepwater Horizon (“Deepwater Horizon” or “Oil Rig”) 

occurred on April 20, 2010, at about 10:00 p.m. central time on the outer Continental Shelf, off 

the Louisiana coast. Following the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, thousands of barrels per 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 5 of 21
6

day of crude oil have been leaking from the oil well upon which the Deepwater Horizon was 

performing completion operations, and from the pipe connected to it (drill stack). The pollutants 

comprising the resulting and ever expanding oil slick, which so far has grown to the size of 

Puerto Rico, are headed towards the class area. 

 21. BP, BP Products and BP America (collectively “BP”) are the holders of a lease 

granted by the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) allowing BP to drill for oil and perform 

oil-production-related operations at the site of the oil spill, and on April 20, 2010 operated the oil 

well that is the source of the oil spill. 

22. Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Offshore and Transocean Deepwater (collectively 

“Transocean”) are the owners or operators of the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible mobile 

drilling rig, which on April 20, 2010, was performing completion operations for BP, BP Products 

and BP America on the outer Continental Shelf where the oil spill now originates. 

23. Upon information and belief, Cameron manufactured or supplied the Deepwater 

Horizon’s blow-out-preventers (“BOP’s”) that failed to operate upon the explosion, which 

should have prevented the oil spill. The BOP’s were defective, among other things, because they 

failed to operate as intended. 

24. Halliburton was engaged in cementing operations of the well and well cap and, 

upon information and belief, improperly and negligently performed these duties, increasing the 

pressure at the well and contributing to the fire, explosion and resulting oil spill. 

25. At all times material hereto, the Deepwater Horizon was owned, manned, 

possessed, managed, controlled, chartered or operated by Transocean or BP. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 6 of 21
7

26. The fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, its sinking and the resulting oil 

spill were caused by the negligence of Defendants, rendering them jointly and severally liable to 

Plaintiffs and the Class Members for injunctive relief and all their damages. 

27. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs and other members of the class 

were and are caused by Defendants’ negligence and its violations of numerous statutes and 

regulations, including, but not limited to, statutes and regulations issued by OSHA and the 

United States Coast Guard, including the requirement to test the sub-sea BOP’s at regular 

intervals. 

28. Defendants knew of the dangers associated with deep water drilling and failed to 

take appropriate measures to prevent damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the class, who 

own real property in the class area and are dependent upon such property to make a living. 

 29. The oil plume will not self-remediate, is spreading pollutants across the Gulf of 

Mexico, and imminently threatening the class area. 

30. The oil plume has caused and will continue to cause loss of revenue to Plaintiffs 

and others similarly situated, who are diminished in the use of their properties and adjoining 

marine waters, including the Gulf of Mexico. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

 31. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, who are members of the following Class: 

 (a) All persons or entities who own or lease real property within Okaloosa or 

 Walton County, Florida south of Interstate 10; AND 

(b) All persons or entities who have businesses based within Okaloosa or 

 Walton County, Florida south of Interstate 10, including, but not limited 

 to, fishing-related businesses emanating from Okaloosa or Walton County, 

 Florida south of Interstate 10. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 7 of 21
8

32. Prerequisites under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4): 

(a) The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, as 

the members of the class number in the thousands. 

(b) There are questions of law or fact common to the class, specifically including all 

fact questions pertaining to the allegations of fact pertaining to liability contained in this 

complaint, as well as all legal questions pertaining to the allegations of law contained in this 

complaint, including the claims for relief contained below. 

(c) the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class, and any defenses to 

the claims would be typical of the claims of the class. 

(d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 

class. 

33. Under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (B), prosecuting separate actions by Plaintiffs and the 

other class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 

individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties 

opposing the class, as well as adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a 

practical matter would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the 

individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their 

interests. 

34. Under Rule 23(b)(2), the parties opposing the class have acted or refused to act on 

grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding 

declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. 

35. Under Rule 23(b)(3), taking into account pertinent factors under (A)-(D) thereof, 

questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 8 of 21
9

only individual class members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly 

and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The interests of the class members, based on the 

herein proposed relatively narrow class definition applying only within coastal Okaloosa and 

Walton Counties, are aligned, and individual class members would not need to individually 

control the prosecution of separate actions in order to reasonably pursue and protect such 

interests. On the contrary, their interests would be well served by not controlling the prosecution 

of separate actions, which would be highly inefficient and not present significant value added for 

a class of this size and orientation. Moreover, although various class actions recently have been 

filed in and out of Florida purporting to represent all or part of the class, along with numerous 

others not in the class, the nature of these class actions is geared exclusively to money damages, 

and moreover, not targeted at the specific reasonable needs and expectations of this specific 

class. Thus, other class actions are not likely to serve the interests of the class to the same degree 

as this action. In addition, it is desirable to concentrate this particular litigation in this District, 

the federal forum closest to the affected class and in the best position to assess the particular 

needs and interests of the class, including most importantly as to injunctive relief. Nonetheless, 

in the event this action is transferred to another forum, the other factors strongly weigh in favor 

of Rule 23(b)(3) certification, even without crediting for Rule 23(b)(3)(C). Finally, this class 

action would be far less likely to have manageability difficulties than larger class actions 

purporting to represent statewide or multistate classes. 

36. The undersigned proposed class counsel likewise should be appointed as class 

counsel for this class. The counsel have worked diligently to identify and investigate potential 

claims for relief based on threats urgently bearing upon the interests of the class. They have 

devised an overall approach that will serve the best interests of the class, including through 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 9 of 21
10

common pursuit of injunctive relief and common fund mitigation not addressed in other class 

actions and relating to the geography of this particular class area. The counsel are experienced in 

handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in this action, 

are knowledgeable of the applicable law, and will commit the resources needed to represent the 

class. By their experience and conduct, they have demonstrated that they are best able to 

represent the interests of this particular narrowly tailored class. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 37. Paragraphs 1-36 above are incorporated herein by reference. 

 38. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated will suffer permanent irreparable harm if 

their properties are allowed by Defendants to be invaded by the pollutant Defendants have 

negligently discharged. 

 39. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated have no adequate remedy at law to protect 

their properties. 

 40. Defendants individually or collectively have the financial wherewithal to protect 

Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Such protection readily and reasonably could occur either 

by Defendants directly providing needed protection or by Defendants being ordered to establish 

under court supervision a fund for providing such protection. 

 41. Public policy and the equities strongly favor such measures. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request: 

A. Class certification as requested herein; 

B. Injunctive relief; 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 10 of 21
11

C. Establishment of a court-administered fund to ensure timely prophylactic 

remedies are in place to protect Plaintiffs and the class; 

D. Compensatory, economic, and punitive damages; 

E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

F. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation; 

G. All other actions deemed just or appropriate by the Court; and 

H. Trial by jury as to all Defendants of all issues so triable. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CONCERNING STRICT LIABILITY 

UNDER FLORIDA’S POLLUTANT DISCHARGE PREVENTION AND CONTROL 

ACT, AND UNDER SECTIONS 376.30-376.317, FLORIDA STATUTES

 42. Paragraphs 1-36 above are incorporated herein by reference. 

43. The Deepwater Horizon oil rig is a no longer functioning mobile offshore drilling 

unit that was placed over a deep ocean oil well, to which it was connected by pipeline. The 

pipeline has now been severed, causing the major and continuing discharge of pollutants. The 

immediate discharge is occurring into waters outside the territorial limits of Florida; however, 

lands and waters within the territorial limits of Florida, and specifically lands and waters within 

the class area, are reasonably expected to be directly affected by the discharge. 

44. Plaintiffs have a real, immediate, and bona fide need for a preventative 

adjudication of whether under these circumstances Defendants will be strictly liable under 

Florida’s Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act, Sections 376.011-376.21, Florida 

Statutes. This act provides for strict liability for destruction to or loss of real or personal 

property, along with reasonable attorney’s and expert witness fees. See §§ 376.031(5), 376.12(5), 

and 376.205, Fla. Stat. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 11 of 21
12

45. The foregoing act is specifically concerned with protecting Florida’s coastal 

waters, see Section 376.021, Florida Statutes, and is separate from and in addition to any strict 

liability under Section 376.313(3), Florida Statutes. Nonetheless, while Section 376.313(3) 

comes within a portion of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, see Sections 376.30-376.317, that, 

among other things, protects potable water sources, see, e.g., Section 376.30(1)(b), its language 

(“a cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction for all damages resulting from a discharge 

or other condition of pollution covered by ss. 376.30-376.317”) is broad. This language has been 

flexibly interpreted by Florida state courts and is not by its terms limited to fresh water surface or 

groundwater sources. Thus, Plaintiffs likewise have a real, immediate, and bona fide need for a 

preventative adjudication of whether under these circumstances Defendants will be strictly liable 

under Section 376.313(3), as well as subject to reasonable attorney’s and expert witness fees 

under Section 376.313(6). 

46. Preventative adjudication of these Florida statutes is necessary and would be 

greatly and presently beneficial to Plaintiffs and the class because the uncertainty created by 

Defendants’ conduct goes to the constitutionally protected property rights of Plaintiffs and the 

class. The uncertainty created by Defendants’ conduct undermines the policy reasons for having 

property and property rules in the first place. Forcing Plaintiffs and the class to engage in 

“discounting” of their property rights while they wait for Defendants’ contamination to arrive 

would be thoroughly inadequate. Further preventative adjudication would encourage the timely 

implementation by Defendants of prophylactic remedies to protect the property rights of the class 

so as to avoid or minimize remedial adjudication under these laws. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request: 

A. Class certification as requested herein; 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 12 of 21
13

B. Declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) concerning the foregoing laws; 

C. Further necessary or proper relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(b) based on any 

declaratory judgment or decree which is issued; 

D. Injunctive relief; 

E. Establishment of a court-administered fund to ensure timely prophylactic 

remedies are in place to protect Plaintiffs and the class; 

F. Compensatory, economic, and punitive damages; 

G. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

H. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation; 

I. All other actions deemed just or appropriate by the Court; and 

J. Trial by jury as to all Defendants of all issues so triable. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, 

GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT

 47. Paragraphs 1-36 above are incorporated herein by reference. 

 48. The fire, explosion and resulting oil spill were caused by the concurrent 

negligence of the Defendants. 

 49. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the fire, explosion and resulting 

oil spill were caused by the joint negligence and fault of the Defendants, by among other things, 

failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon; operating the Deepwater Horizon in such a 

manner that a fire and explosion occurred onboard, causing it to sink and resulting in an oil spill; 

failing to properly inspect the Deepwater Horizon to assure that its equipment and personnel 

were fit for their intended purpose; acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 13 of 21
14

for the safety of others; failing to promulgate, implement and enforce rules and regulations 

pertaining to the safe operations of the Deepwater Horizon which, if they had been so 

promulgated, implemented and enforced, would have averted the fire, explosion, sinking and oil 

spill; operating the Deepwater Horizon with untrained and unlicensed personnel; inadequate and 

negligent training and hiring of personnel; failing to take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate 

the accident; negligently implementing policies and procedures to safely conduct offshore 

operations in the Gulf of Mexico; employing untrained or poorly trained employees and failing 

to properly train their employees; failing to ascertain that the Deepwater Horizon and its 

equipment were free from defects and/or in proper working order; failing to timely warn; failing 

to timely bring the oil release under control; failing to provide appropriate accident prevent 

equipment; failing to observe and read gauges that would have indicated excessive pressures in 

the well; failing to react to danger signs; providing BOP’s that did not work properly; conducting 

well and well cap cementing operations improperly; acting in a manner that justifies imposition 

of punitive damages; and such other acts of negligence and omissions as will be shown at the 

trial of this matter, all of which acts are in violation of the laws of Florida and Federal law 

applicable on the outer Continental Shelf. 

50. In addition, and in the alternative, the fire, explosion, sinking and resulting oil 

spill were caused by defective equipment, including the BOP’s, which were in the care, custody, 

and control of Defendants. Defendants knew or should have known of these defects and 

Defendants are, therefore, liable for them. 

51. The injuries to Plaintiffs and the class were also caused by or aggravated by the 

fact that Defendants failed to take necessary actions to mitigate the danger associated with their 

operations. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 14 of 21
15

52. In addition to the negligent actions described above, and in the alternative thereto, 

the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the class were caused by the acts and 

omissions of the Defendants that are beyond proof by the Plaintiffs and the class, but which were 

within the knowledge and control of the Defendants, there being no other possible conclusion 

than that the fire, explosion, sinking and oil spill resulted from the negligence of Defendants. 

Furthermore, the fire, explosion, sinking and the resulting oil spill would not have occurred had 

the Defendants exercised the high degree of care imposed on them. Plaintiffs, therefore, plead 

the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 

53. Moreover, Defendants were and are responsible for the foregoing acts and 

omissions under egregious circumstances, with utter awareness of their placement of innocent 

persons and properties, including the public at large, at great risk of injury, loss, or damage. 

Defendants knowingly cut corners to save money and keep revenue streams from the Deepwater 

Horizon flowing. It was fully capable and aware of readily available measures to avoid or 

minimize a disaster of this kind but neglected to do so for profit. It gambled, and the public, 

including Plaintiffs and the class, have lost. Therefore, in addition and in the alternative, 

Defendants’ acts and omissions constitute both gross negligence and willful misconduct. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request: 

A. Class certification as requested herein; 

B. Injunctive relief; 

C. Establishment of a court-administered fund to ensure timely prophylactic 

remedies are in place to protect Plaintiffs and the class; 

D. Compensatory, economic, and punitive damages; 

E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 15 of 21
16

F. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation; 

G. All other actions deemed just or appropriate by the Court; and 

H. Trial by jury as to all Defendants of all issues so triable. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL OIL POLLUTION ACT, INCLUDING 

UNCAPPED LIABILITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT

 54. Paragraphs 1-36 above are incorporated herein by reference. 

 55. The fire, explosion and resulting oil spill were caused by the concurrent 

negligence of the Defendants. 

 56. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the fire, explosion and resulting 

oil spill were caused by the joint negligence and fault of the Defendants, by among other things, 

failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon; operating the Deepwater Horizon in such a 

manner that a fire and explosion occurred onboard, causing it to sink and resulting in an oil spill; 

failing to properly inspect the Deepwater Horizon to assure that its equipment and personnel 

were fit for their intended purpose; acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard 

for the safety of others; failing to promulgate, implement and enforce rules and regulations 

pertaining to the safe operations of the Deepwater Horizon which, if they had been so 

promulgated, implemented and enforced, would have averted the fire, explosion, sinking and oil 

spill; operating the Deepwater Horizon with untrained and unlicensed personnel; inadequate and 

negligent training and hiring of personnel; failing to take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate 

the accident; negligently implementing policies and procedures to safely conduct offshore 

operations in the Gulf of Mexico; employing untrained or poorly trained employees and failing 

to properly train their employees; failing to ascertain that the Deepwater Horizon and its 

equipment were free from defects and/or in proper working order; failing to timely warn; failing 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 16 of 21
17

to timely bring the oil release under control; failing to provide appropriate accident prevent 

equipment; failing to observe and read gauges that would have indicated excessive pressures in 

the well; failing to react to danger signs; providing BOP’s that did not work properly; conducting 

well and well cap cementing operations improperly; acting in a manner that justifies imposition 

of punitive damages; and such other acts of negligence and omissions as will be shown at the 

trial of this matter, all of which acts are in violation of the laws of Florida and Federal law 

applicable on the outer Continental Shelf. 

57. In addition, and in the alternative, the fire, explosion, sinking and resulting oil 

spill were caused by defective equipment, including the BOP’s, which were in the care, custody, 

and control of Defendants. Defendants knew or should have known of these defects and 

Defendants are, therefore, liable for them. 

58. The injuries to Plaintiffs and the class were also caused by or aggravated by the 

fact that Defendants failed to take necessary actions to mitigate the danger associated with their 

operations. 

59. In addition to the negligent actions described above, and in the alternative thereto, 

the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the class were caused by the acts and 

omissions of the Defendants that are beyond proof by the Plaintiffs and the class, but which were 

within the knowledge and control of the Defendants, there being no other possible conclusion 

than that the fire, explosion, sinking and oil spill resulted from the negligence of Defendants. 

Furthermore, the fire, explosion, sinking and the resulting oil spill would not have occurred had 

the Defendants exercised the high degree of care imposed on them. Plaintiffs, therefore, plead 

the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 17 of 21
18

60. Moreover, Defendants were and are responsible for the foregoing acts and 

omissions under egregious circumstances, with utter awareness of their placement of innocent 

persons and properties, including the public at large, at great risk of injury, loss, or damage. 

Defendants knowingly cut corners to save money and keep revenue streams from the Deepwater 

Horizon flowing. It was fully capable and aware of readily available measures to avoid or 

minimize a disaster of this kind but neglected to do so for profit. It gambled, and the public, 

including Plaintiffs and the class, have lost. Therefore, in addition and in the alternative, 

Defendants’ acts and omissions constitute both gross negligence and willful misconduct. 

 61. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the class under the federal Oil Pollution 

Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2719. Specifically, under 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(2)(B), (C), and (F), 

Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the class for damages for injury to, or economic losses 

resulting from destruction of, real or personal property; damages for loss of subsistence use of 

natural resources; and damages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due 

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

addition, or in the alternative, the foregoing damages are uncapped under 33 U.S.C. § 

2704(c)(1)(A) because the incident was proximately caused by Defendants’ gross negligence or 

willful misconduct. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request: 

A. Class certification as requested herein; 

B. Injunctive relief; 

C. Establishment of a court-administered fund to ensure timely prophylactic 

remedies are in place to protect Plaintiffs and the class; 

D. Compensatory, economic, and punitive damages; 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 18 of 21
19

E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

F. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation; 

G. All other actions deemed just or appropriate by the Court; and 

H. Trial by jury as to all Defendants of all issues so triable. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

COMMON LAW STRICT LIABILITY

62. Paragraphs 1-36 above are incorporated herein by reference. 

63. Defendant Cameron manufactured or supplied the Deepwater Horizon’s BOP’s. 

64. Defendant Cameron’s BOP’s failed to operate properly or at all, at the time of or 

following the explosion, and this failure caused or contributed to the oil spill. 

65. Defendant Cameron’s BOP’s were defective because they failed to operate as 

intended. 

66. As a result of the BOP’s product defect, pollutants were released from or at the 

Deepwater Horizon rig, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs and the class. 

67. Defendant Cameron’s BOP’s were in a defective condition and unreasonably 

dangerous to Plaintiffs when the BOP’s left Defendant Cameron’s control. 

68. At all times, Defendant Cameron’s BOP’s were used in the manner intended. 

69. In addition, or in the alternative, Defendants, as the owners or operators of the 

Deepwater Horizon rig, engaged in abnormally dangerous activities by the manner in which they 

maintained and operated the Deepwater Horizon. Defendants’ activities resulted in the 

intentional, incidental or accidental fire, explosion, sinking, and resulting oil spill from the 

Deepwater Horizon rig, which created a high degree of risk of harm to others, including 

Plaintiffs and the class; created a risk involving a likelihood that the harm threatened by 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 19 of 21
20

Defendants’ activities would be great; created a risk of harm that could not be eliminated by the 

exercise of reasonable care; were not a matter of common usage; and were inappropriate to the 

place that they were being carried on, in that they constituted a non-natural use of Defendants’ 

oil lease which imposed an unusual and extraordinary risk of harm to Plaintiffs and the class. 

70. Further, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct in engaging in 

the abnormally dangerous activities alleged above, substantial amounts of crude oil have been 

released and continue to be released from the well leased by BP. The harm sustained by 

Plaintiffs and the class is exactly the kind of harm posed, the possibility of which made 

Defendants’ activities abnormally dangerous. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request: 

A. Class certification as requested herein; 

B. Injunctive relief; 

C. Establishment of a court-administered fund to ensure timely prophylactic 

remedies are in place to protect Plaintiffs and the class; 

D. Compensatory, economic, and punitive damages; 

E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

F. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation; 

G. All other actions deemed just or appropriate by the Court; and 

H. Trial by jury as to all Defendants of all issues so triable. 

 DATED this 4th day of May 2010. 

 /s/ Michelle Anchors 

 Lawrence Keefe 

 Florida Bar No. 0602809 

 Michelle Anchors 

Florida Bar No. 0932272 

 A. Benjamin Gordon 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 20 of 21
21

Florida Bar No. 0528617 

KEEFE ANCHORS GORDON & MOYLE, P.A. 

909 Mar Walt Drive, Suite 1022 

Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547 

Telephone: (850) 863-1974 

 Facsimile: (850) 863-1591 

 

 and 

 William F. Merlin, Jr. 

 Florida Bar No. 364721 

 MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A. 

 777 South Harbour Island Boulevard, Suite 950 

 Tampa, Florida 33602 

 Telephone: (813) 229-1000 

 Facsimile: (813) 229-3692 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 3:10-cv-00141-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 05/04/10 Page 21 of 21