Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions

By
Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 5:05 pm

Scott Perry used to sell timeshares in Santa Rosa Beach, Fla. After the oil spill, people didn’t want to buy timeshares on the beach and his sales plummeted.

Perry was told that he was ineligible to receive compensation through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and should seek relief from a separate pool of money compensation fund administrator Kenneth Feinberg has set aside for real estate agents. But Perry says some of his colleagues, who also sell timeshares, were paid by the GCCF. The GCCF is inconsistent about who it does and doesn’t pay, Perry alleges.

Here is what he told me in an email:

As suspected, my claim was ruled inelgible under the GCCF and was informed to contact the Emerald Coast Association of Realtors to file under that fund since I was declared a Realtor or a Broker even though I am neither.  In fact, many others on the sales force received the same notification; however, the strange twist in this is that while many on the sales force received the same correspondence – just as many were paid claims by the GCCF.  We do not understand how the GCCF can errantly claim that 1/2 the room is considered either a broker or a realtor and the other 1/2 of the room is not and elgible.

While many of us do have a real estate license, we are not affiliated with the Emerald Coast Association of Realtors and do not pay membership dues to them.  Additionally, I tried to explain to the GCCF that I also have a fishing license, but that does not make me eligible to file for loss of revenue as a commercial fisherman.

When I went up to the claims office to inquire how that is possible, I received a letter from the GCCF advising me that my claim had been ruled inelgible and that was it.  Since there is no formal appeals process in place by the GCCF, I have personally asked the law firm that I had contacted in the beginning of this whole mess and asked them represent me with the final claims process as that word “final” has some serious repurcussions in my mind.

When I spoke to the lady at the law firm that is my contact there, she informed me that they have already represented many individuals in my exact position and that had already received claims AND that they are representing one of the timeshare developers in the area that run numerous resorts in the area and that they had received a rather large claim due to loss of revenue due to the oil spill.

It almost seems like they’re flipping coins to decide who’s eligible and who’s not.

If you’ve discovered inconsistencies in the claims process or would like to alert me to other issues related to the GCCF, send me an email at arestuccia@washingtonindependent.com.

Follow Andrew Restuccia on Twitter


Comments

9 Comments

Tweets that mention Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 5:51 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Oil Spill, r3publican and Andrew Restuccia, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions http://bit.ly/96ibxs [...]


James Fox on the BP Oil Spill – Part II | ufo-tv.com
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

[...] Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions « The … Share and Enjoy: [...]


Should BPt? | Ultimate Fishing and Hunting Blog
Pingback posted October 29, 2010 @ 2:16 am

[...] Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions « The Washington Independent [...]


Key Cement Test Skipped on BP Well North Capitol Street
Pingback posted October 29, 2010 @ 2:35 am

[...] Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions « The … [...]


Ed Schultz Erroneously Claims No Evidence of Leftist Violence at Kentucky Senatorial Debate | Katy Pundit
Pingback posted October 29, 2010 @ 3:24 am

[...] Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions « The … [...]


Critical test not done on cement before blowout North Capitol Street
Pingback posted October 29, 2010 @ 6:50 am

[...] Inconsistencies Emerging in Oil Spill Claims Decisions « The … [...]


Halliburton Knew About Cement Problems at BP Well
Pingback posted October 29, 2010 @ 11:26 am

[...] as well as claims from individuals seeking damages. That claims process sounds like it’s going about as well as HAMP, by the way. But for months now, the question has been who will pay. This seems like [...]


Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Blog Kenneth Feinberg | Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Blog
Pingback posted October 30, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

[...] up on my post yesterday on inconsistencies in the Gulf oil spill claims process, I thought I’d share this email [...]


amy sullivan
Comment posted November 12, 2010 @ 6:26 am

Dear someone who cares,

It’s my understanding that most casino employees are being denied their claims for lost wages. However, I know some people got money and work in the casino. Why are some being paid but MOST are not??? We are hearing that it is due to the casino revenue being up for the summer months after the oil spill. I hope that whoever is in charge with handling the funds understand that 80% of casino revenue is generated though slot machines. How can tipped employees be denied lost wages with proof just because they work in a casino?? The local Waffle houses, Walmarts, Lumber yards, beauty salons, spas, tanning salons, lawn care workers, taxi/limo businesses, bars and all restaurants are being paid without any hassle and without having to provide half the proof of loss than we do!! The bars and restaurants, I know for a fact, get paid just like us dealers do…..under 5.00 plus tips and they are being paid within a week of putting their claims in. This is not fair! We protested this past Monday and will do it again every week until we receive fair treatment. I am currently working on getting national media to review this story along with our protest! I hope that someone reviews these facts and claims status’.

Thank you,

Amy S


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.