$3.6 Billion Exxon Award Overturned
A quick look around the Alabama blogosphere today revealed a number of posts on the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a lower court’s decision to levy a $3.6 billion punitive award against ExxonMobil.
Doc’s viewed the decision through the prism of lawmakers who had been lusting at the windfall. He included a quote from Rep. Yusuf Salaam who viewed the potential payoff not as an opportunity to relieve the tax burden on Alabamians, but as a chance to implement “progressive” legislation. Translation: he wanted to kick start a bunch of unnecessary programs with money that would soon be gone at which point he would wail on the House floor that we needed to raise taxes to fund those “essential” programs.
The always humorous Left in Alabama predictably lamented the decision not because they felt there was compelling evidence in the case to support the huge award (at least they didn’t try to make such a point), but because it involved a rich oil company that clearly needs to be punished because it is A) large, B) an oil company, C) profitable, D) evil, and E) ostensibly Republican.
Birmingham Blues proffered innuendo from the previous election that this decision - which must have already been made for the narrative to hold - was delayed so that it didn’t hurt Drayton Nabers in his failed bid for Chief Justice.
One thing that should be kept in mind is that the huge multi billion dollar award was punitive damages. This is not about reimbursement, i.e. compensatory damages, which the court upheld. In other words, Alabama will get repaid for any money Exxon should have paid with interest. This case was all about Alabama getting greedy and playing the jackpot justice game.
The case reminds me of how I would reform the legal system if I were king. I’m not keen on loser pays ideas because that would effectively dissuade some credible plaintiffs from pressing charges when necessary due to fear of paying up if they lose. I prefer a system where the successful plaintiff gets the compensatory damages, but the punitive damages do not go to the plaintiff. They could go into the municipality, state, or federal coffers or could go into a charitably run fund that seeks to prevent the wrong that was perpetrated to bring about the lawsuit. That would allow for people who have been harmed to seek out justice without fear of paying two sets of legal fees, but it culls out the others who just hope to get rich off of punitive damages - like the state in this case.
Related content:
- So what is it: strong or troubled?
- From My Flashpoint: PACT lawsuits on the horizon?
- North Alabama needs $1.8 billion for BRAC
Print This Post
I noticed that Sue Bell was the odd robe out on that decision. It seemed like a fairly simple point of law, I wonder at her reasoning…