OPA 90 Claim Requirements: Claimants must comply with 90 day Presentment and 3 Year Statute of Limitation Requirement or be Barred

OPA 90 Claim Requirements:

Claimants must comply with 90 day Presentment and 3 Year Statute of Limitation Requirement or be Barred

 By: Sarah Didlake

Edited by: Max Schellenberg

Nguyen v. Am. Com. Lines L.L.C., 15-30070, 2015 WL 5881599, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2015)

A July 2008 collision on the Mississippi River and subsequent oil spill prompted a number of commercial fishermen to file claims under the OPA 90 against defendant, American Commercial Lines (“ACL”), the Responsible Party. In the district court, ACL argued that the claimants failed to satisfy OPA’s substantive presentment requirement because the claims were not submitted with sufficient supporting documents in addition to not being signed by the claimants individually. Additionally, ACL asserted that a number of the claims were separately barred by the 3 year statute of limitation under OPA. This group of claimants waited to present their claims to ACL until July 22, 2011—a mere 3 days before filing suit to avoid the expiration of the three-year limitation period.The district court denied ACL’s motion for summary judgment but granted its motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.The Fifth Circuit first affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the claims were not barred due to the claimants’ failure to sign or provide additional supporting documentation. Rejecting the defendant’s contention that the claims were deficient under 33 C.F.R. § 136.105, the court found that ACL’s arguments were based, in part, on a misinterpretation of OPA. That is, ACL erroneously “conflate[ed] the requirements for filing claims against the Fund with the requirements for presenting claims to a responsible party.” Instead, the court turned to the plain language of the Act and found that the claims presented to ACL were sufficient to constitute claims under the statute. In addition, the attorney who signed the claims had authority to submit them on behalf of his clients.Finally, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether other claimants must comply with both the 90-day presentment requirement as well as the three-year statute of limitation period. The court was not persuaded by any of the claimants’ arguments. Turning again to the plain language of the Act, the court noted that the provisions establishing the presentment requirement and the limitation period “operate independently of each other.” Thus, the failure to comply with one requirement cannot be excused by compliance with the other. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, and held that claimants must comply with both the 90-day presentment waiting period as well as the three-year period of limitations.