2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Transcription

1 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION THE LITCHFIED COMPANY, LLC ) CASE NO: individually and on behalf of all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT ) (Negligence) vs. ) (Environmental Damage) ) (Strict Liability) BP, P.L.C., BP AMERICA, INC., BP ) (Oil Pollution Act) PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) BP EXPLORATION AND ) PRODUCTION, INC., HALLIBURTON ) ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ) CAMERON INTERNATIONAL ) CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER ) CAMERON CORPORATION ) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED (CAMERON), TRANSOCEAN, LTD., ) TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC., ) And TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE ) DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, THE LITCHFIELD COMPANY, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Plaintiff ), by and through its undersigned attorneys, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, file this action against Defendants, BP, P.L.C., BP AMERICA, INC., BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC., HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION (CAMERON), TRANSOCEAN, LTD., TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC. and TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC., and allege as follows: INTRODUCTION

2 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of This is a class action brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated as a result of the oil spill that resulted from the explosion and fire abroad, and subsequent sinking of the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon (hereinafter Deepwater Horizon or Oil Rig ) on April 20, 2010, at about 10:00 p.m. central time on the outer Continental Shelf, Mississippi Canyon Block 252. Following the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, approximately twenty thousand (20,000) barrels per day (or more) of crude oil have been leaking from the oil well upon which the Oil Rig was performing completion operations, and from the pipe connected to it (drill stack). The fast moving oil slick, which has grown to a surface area of at least 2,500 square miles (and is expanding daily) and subsurface area of tremendous proportion and has caused and/or will cause detrimental effects and damages upon the entire South Carolina marine environments, coastal environments, estuarine areas and properties which are used by Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons and entities for various business and tourism related activities, businesses and revenue. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, THE LITCHFIELD COMPANY, LLC, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, and at all times relevant herein, is bringing this claim on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated companies and/or entities. This real estate company, consisting of individual real estate

3 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 22 agents, is a company which specializes in the listing and sale of properties located on or near the coast of South Carolina. THE LITCHFIELD COMPANY, LLC develops property, sells property, represents buyers and sellers of property, manages individual and business properties located in one of the six coastal counties, hereinafter referred to as the COASTAL COUNTIES of South Carolina (Horry County, Georgetown County, Charleston County, Colleton County, Jasper County and Beaufort County). As a result of the events described above and below, Plaintiff and those similarly situated within this class, as described below, have suffered damages and anticipates suffering damages both presently and in the future. 3. Defendant, BP, P.L.C. ( BP ) is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 4. Defendant, BP AMERICA, INC. ( BP America ) is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 5. Defendant, BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC. ( BP Products ) is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of

4 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 22 South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 6. Defendant, BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC., ( BP EXPLORATION ) is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. The Defendants BP, BP America, BP Products and BP Exploration may also be referred collectively as BP. 7. Defendant, HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. ( Halliburton ) is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 8. Defendant, CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION d/k/a COOPER-CAMERON CORPORATION ( Cameron ) is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 9. Defendant, TRANSOCEAN, LTD, ( Transocean, Ltd. ), is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The

5 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 5 of 22 Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 10. Defendant, TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC., ( Transocean Deepwater ), is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. 11. Defendant, TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC., ( Transocean Offshore ), is a corporation and exists under laws outside of the State of South Carolina but does business within the State of South Carolina and/or affects commerce within the State of South Carolina. The Defendants actions as set forth in this complaint have caused damages to both real and personal property and business in South Carolina. The Defendants Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Deepwater and Transocean Offshore collectively may be referred to as Transocean. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to: (1) 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and it is a class action brought by citizens of a State that is different from the State where all of the Defendants are incorporated and (2) 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 13. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) as a substantial part to the events and/or omissions (resulting damages) giving rise to the

6 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 6 of 22 claim occurred, and a substantial part of property that is the subject of this action is situated, in this District. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 14. Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Deepwater, Inc. and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively Transocean ) are the owners and/or operators of the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling rig, which was performing completion operations for BP, BP Products and/or BP America on the outer Continental Shelf, at the site from which the oil spill originated on April 20, BP, BP Products, BP America, BP Exploration, and/or BP Products North America (collectively BP ) are the holders of a lease granted by the Minerals Management Service (United States of America) that allows 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. 16. Upon information and belief, Cameron manufactured and/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 because they failed to operate as intended. 17. Halliburton was engaged in cementing and other operations of the well and well cap and, upon information and belief, improperly and negligently performed these duties, increasing pressure at the well and contributing to the fire, explosion and resulting oil spill.

7 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 7 of At all times material hereto, the Deepwater Horizon was owned, manned, possessed, managed, controlled, chartered, repaired, serviced, and/or operated by the Defendants. 19. The fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, its sinking, and the resulting oil spill were caused by the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness and wantonness of Defendants, which renders them liable jointly and severally, to the Plaintiffs and Class Members and all others similarly situated for all their damages. 20. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff, Class Members and all others similarly situated were caused by Defendants violations of numerous statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to, federal and state statutes and regulations, OSHA and the United States Coast Guard. 21. Defendants knew of the dangers associated with deep water drilling and failed to take appropriate measures to prevent damage to Plaintiff, Class Members and all others similarly situated, the COASTAL COUNTIES, the coastal region of South Carolina, and the entire South-Atlantic s marine and coastal environments and estuarine areas. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendants intentionally and recklessly chose not to install the appropriate safety measures on the Deepwater Horizon that, if installed, would have prevented or minimized the amount of oil spilled. The Defendants also made false representations to regulatory agencies in order to obtain permits and licenses to operate and do business on the Deepwater Horizon.

8 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 8 of The accident was caused by no fault of the Plaintiff, Class Members and all others similarly situated, and was caused solely by the negligence of the Defendants, jointly and severally set forth herein. 24. On May 19, 2010, the United States Coast Guard reported that a measurable amount of oil had entered the Gulf of Mexico s loop current, thereby threatening South Carolina s beaches, fishing habitats and recreational areas thereby affecting the Plaintiff s property and their business interests as well as those similarly situated. 25. The spilled oil also threatens one of South Carolina s most financially important industries tourism. In fact, South Carolina coastal tourism is responsible for the majority of tourism income generated by the entire state of South Carolina. Much of the economic impact of tourism in South Carolina can be traced directly or indirectly to the coastal communities and local businesses that exist on or near South Carolina s several hundred miles of beaches (COASTAL COUNTIES) popular to travelers and vacationers from around the world. 26. The attractions, hotels, restaurants and coastal retail establishments are just some of the South Carolina coastal businesses that owe their economic survival and success to vacationing tourists. 27. Once it became clear that early oil spill containment efforts had failed, the tourism and housing industry in COASTAL COUNTIES South Carolina was immediately affected. 28. Despite the fact that no oil had actually washed up on a South Carolina beach, the continuous news reports were ominous. Tourists, particularly those from out

9 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 9 of 22 of state, were simply unwilling to take any chances that their vacations might be adversely affected by the oil spill. Furthermore, property values have already begun to decline due to the ominous and scary reports of oil arriving in South Carolina (COASTAL COUNTIES) in the very near future. 29. Plaintiff s businesses rely almost exclusively on tourism to create revenue. As a result of the oil spill and the detrimental affect it has played on the tourism trade in South Carolina, Plaintiffs have experienced a loss of sales and rentals. This has resulted in significant lost business revenue with no immediate sign of relief and resulting in loss of business and property values. 30. The oil spill and contamination has caused and will continue to cause lost revenue to businesses such as Plaintiff s that are economically dependant on South Carolina tourism. 31. The oil spill and contamination has caused and will continue to cause lost revenue to businesses due to the stigma created that South Carolina s coast and seafood have been, or will continue to be, contaminated by the oil. 32. There are many other potential harmful impacts from the oil spill that are not currently known, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint once additional information becomes available. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 33. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as of the proposed Plaintiff s class. The proposed class is initially defined as: i. Plaintiff, THE LITCHFIELD COMPANY, LLC brings this action on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a proposed class which

10 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 10 of 22 consists of owners and operators of coastal real estate companies and individual realtors who live, work in, or derive profits and income from the South Carolina COASTAL COUNTIES, and who have sustained any legally cognizable loss and/or damages as a result of the April 20, 2010 fire and explosion which occurred aboard the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling rig and the oil spill resulting there from. Excluded from the class are the Defendants in the action, any entity(s) in which the Defendants have a controlling interest, any employees, officers or directors of Defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of Defendants. I. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law 34. Common questions of fact and law predominate over the questions affecting only individual class members. These common factual questions and legal questions include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Whether, and to what extent, Defendants, collectively and/or individually caused and/or contributed to the fire, explosion and continuous oil spill; b. Whether Defendants actions were negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, willful and/or wanton; c. Whether the fire, explosion and oil spill have caused environmental or other damage affecting the Plaintiff and the Class Members; d. Whether, and to what extent, Defendants, collectively and/or individually engaged in abnormally dangerous activities for which they are strictly liable; e. Whether Defendants collectively and/or individually acted negligent and/or grossly negligent in failing to maintain and/or operate the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon;

11 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 11 of 22 f. Whether Defendants, collectively and/or individually acted negligent and/or grossly negligent in failing to take reasonable measures to contain the oil spill; g. Whether Defendants, collectively and/or individually owed a duty to Plaintiff and the proposed class they seek to represent to maintain the Deepwater Horizon and/or to conduct drilling operations in a manner so as to prevent the discharge and/or substantial threat of discharge of oil into or upon the coast waters, creeks, marshes, estuaries, and any other adjacent affected areas of South Carolina; h. Whether Defendants, collectively and/or individually are strictly liable to Plaintiff and all others similarly situated; i. Whether Plaintiff and proposed class members were injured by the Defendants acts or omissions, and, if so, the appropriate class-wide measures of damages. II. Typicality 35. Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a)(3): Plaintiff s claims are typical of the claims of the proposed class because Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct that gave rise to the claims of Plaintiff and all proposed class members and the claims are based on the same legal theories. III. Numerosity 36. Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a)(1): The members of the proposed classes are so numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable. The disposition of the

12 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 12 of 22 claims asserted herein through this class action will be more efficient and will benefit the parties and the Court. IV. Adequacy 37. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the proposed class because its interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class it seeks to represent. The Plaintiff adequately and truly represents the interests of the absent class members. Plaintiff and all members of the classes they seek to represent have been damaged by reason of the Defendants conduct. The interests to Plaintiff is coextensive with the interests of the proposed class members, with common rights of recovery based on the same essential facts. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex environmental class action litigation and Plaintiff intends to pursue this action vigorously. Plaintiff and its counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the proposed class. 38. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained pursuant to the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P.23(b)(1) and 23(b)(3), and other causes of action, both State and Federal. V. Superiority 39. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, in that, among other things, there is no interest by members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions and the expense of prosecuting individual claims is prohibitive. It is desirable to concentrate the litigation of the claims made herein in a single proceeding in order to provide claimants with a forum in which to seek redress. Whatever difficulties may exist in the

13 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 13 of 22 management of the class action will be greatly outweighed by the class action procedure, including but not limited to, providing claimants with a method for the redress of claims that may not otherwise warrant individual litigation. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the proposed classes predominate over any questions affecting only individual proposed class members. 40. The prosecution of separate claims by individual members of the class creates a risk that adjudication concerning individual members of the class would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of, or substantially impair or impede, the ability of other members of the class not parties to this action to protect their interests. If Plaintiff is forced to pursue this action in an individual capacity, the court is likely to make legal rulings that will be dispositive of the claims of members of the proposed class not parties herein. Additionally, if the Plaintiff prevails, the relief they obtain may impair or impede the ability of Defendants to provide relief to members of the proposed class not parties herein. PROPOSED CLASS 41. Proposed Class Plaintiff, THE LITCHFIELD COMPANY LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, and at all times relevant herein, is bringing this claim on behalf of itself and on behalf of all owners and operators of other real estate companies and realtors engaged in the real estate business that live, work in, or derive profits and income from the South Carolina COASTAL COUNTIES. COUNT I

14 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 14 of 22 NEGLIGENCE 42. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and Proposed Class, repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same. 43. The fire, explosion and resulting oil spill was caused by the concurrent negligence of the Defendants. 44. Defendants owed a duty of a reasonable care to Plaintiff in the operation and maintenance of the Deepwater Horizon. 45. The Defendants were negligent, grossly negligent, reckless, wanton, willful, consciously indifferent and deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff and acted in an egregious and arbitrary conduct, in the following particulars: a. Failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon; b. Operating the Deepwater Horizon in such a manner that a fire and explosion occurred onboard, causing it to sink and resulting in continuous oil spill; c. Failing to properly inspect the Deepwater Horizon to assure that its equipment was fit for its intended purposes; d. Acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of others; e. 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;

15 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 15 of 22 f. Operating the Deepwater Horizon with untrained and unlicensed personnel; g. Inadequate and negligent training, hiring and supervising of personnel; h. Failing to take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate the accident; i. Negligent implementation of policies and procedures to safely conduct offshore operations in the Gulf of Mexico; j. Employing untrained or poorly trained employees and failing to properly train their employees; k. Failing to ascertain that the Deepwater Horizon and its equipment were free from defects and/or in proper working order; l. Failure to timely warn; m. Failure to timely bring the discharge of oil under control; n. Failure to provide appropriate accident prevention equipment; o. Failure to observe and read gauges that would have indicated excessive pressures in the well; p. Failure to react to signs of danger; q. Providing BOP s that did not work as intended; r. Conducting well and well cap cementing operations improperly; s. Misrepresenting the effects of an oil spill on the property and environment to obtain licenses and permits; t. Failing to heed the problems that gave warnings of an impending disaster and disruption of the operation of the Deepwater Horizon; u. Acting in a manner that justifies punitive damages;

16 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 16 of 22 v. Such other acts of negligence, gross negligence and omissions as will be shown at the trial of this matter, all of which are in violation of applicable State and Federal law. 46. In addition, and in the alternative, the fire, explosion, sinking and resulting oil spill were caused by defective equipment, including but not limited to BOP s, which were in the care, custody and control of the Defendants. Defendants knew or should have known of these defects and are, therefore, liable for them. 47. The injuries to Plaintiff and Proposed 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. 48. Plaintiff and Proposed Class are entitled to a judgment finding Defendants liable for damages suffered as a result of Defendants negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness and/or wantonness, and awarding Plaintiff adequate compensation therefore in amounts determined by the trier of fact. 49. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages, costs, attorneys fees and other damages. COUNT II STRICT LIABILITY FOR ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY 50. Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and proposed Class, repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same. 51. Defendants, as the owners and/or operators of the Deepwater Horizon, engaged in abnormally dangerous activities by the manner in which they maintained and

17 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 17 of 22 operated the Deepwater Horizon. Defendants activities resulted in the intentional, incidental and/or accidental fire, explosion, sinking and resulting oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit, which: a. created a high degree of risk of harm to others, and particularly to Plaintiff; b. created a risk of harm that could not be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care; c. were not a matter of common usage; d. 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 Plaintiff. 52. 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 Plaintiff and Proposed Class members is exactly the kind of harm expected, the possibility of which made Defendants activities abnormally dangerous. 53. Plaintiff and Proposed Class members are entitled to a judgment finding Defendants liable for damages, including punitive damages and other allowed damages suffered as a result of Defendants abnormally dangerous activities and awarding Plaintiff adequate compensation therefore in amounts determined by the trier of fact. COUNT III STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY FOR MANUFACTURING DEFECT

18 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 18 of Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and Proposed Class members, repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same. 55. Defendant Cameron manufactured and/or supplied the Deepwater Horizon s BOP s. 56. 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. 57. Defendant Cameron s BOP s were defective because they failed to operate as intended. 58. As a result of the BOP s product defect, oil was released from the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit thereby causing injury to Plaintiff and the proposed class. 59. Defendant Cameron s BOP s were in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs when the BOP s left Defendant Cameron s control. 60. At all times, Defendant Cameron s BOP s were used in the manner intended. 61. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Proposed Class members have incurred damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 62. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Proposed Class members are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages and for such other relief, including costs and attorney fees, as the Court allows. COUNT IV (OIL POLLUTION ACT)

19 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 19 of Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and Proposed Class members, repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above with the same. 64. The Oil Pollution Act imposes liability upon a reasonable party for a facility from which oil is discharged into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines for the damages that result from such incident. 33 U.S.C Section 2702(b)(2)(C) provides for the recovery of [d]amages for subsistence use of natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant who so uses natural resources which have been injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership or management of the resources. 66. The Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 2702 for all the damages that result from the oil spill. 67. As a result of the oil spill, Plaintiff and Proposed Class members have not been able to use natural resources (air and water, and potentially wetlands and other areas and spaces that have and/or may become contaminated by the spilled oil) for their subsistence, and they are entitled to recover from Defendants for such damages in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact. 68. Section 2702(b)(2)(E) provides for the recovery of [d]amages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of earnings capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant. 69. As a result of the oil spill, Plaintiff and Proposed Class Members have suffered the type of damages that may be recovered pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(E),

20 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 20 of 22 and they demand compensation therefore from Defendants in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Proposed Class Members demand judgment against Defendants, jointly, severally, and in solido, as follows: a. An order certifying the Class for the purpose of going forward with any one or all of the causes of action alleged herein; appointing Plaintiff as Class Representatives; and appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class; b. Economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial, but not less than the $5,000, required by the Class Action Fairness Act which establishes one of the Court s bases of jurisdiction to hear this case; c. Punitive damages; d. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; e. cost of clean up and remediation; f. loss of plants, trees and wildlife as a result of oil contamination; g. stigma damages; h. mental anguish; i. exemplary damages for contamination as a result of a hazardous substance; j. attorney s fees and costs in connection with exemplary damage;

21 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 21 of 22 k. loss of use and enjoyment of the property; l. loss of property value and income; m. loss of business opportunity; n. fear of adverse health complications; o. Such other and further relief available under all applicable state and federal laws and any relief the Court deems just and appropriate; and p. A trial by jury as to all Defendants. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: June 6, 2010 Georgetown, SC s/j. Edward Bell, III J. Edward Bell, III (1280) W. Baxter Harwell (6112) Aaron S. Jophlin (10114) Bell Legal Group, LLC 232 King Street Georgetown, South Carolina TEL: (843) FAX: (843) Thomas C. Brittain (04920) T. Case Brittain, Jr. (10680) Andrew Preston Brittain (10408) The Brittain Law Firm, P. A Oleander Street Myrtle Beach, SC TEL: (843) FAX: (843) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

22 2:10-cv MDL Date Filed 06/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 22 of 22