Bp Well-Site Managers’ Spill Manslaughter Case Dropped

Analysis of: “BP Well-Site Managers’ Spill Manslaughter Case Dropped” by Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Brubaker Calkins

        In April of 2010, eleven men perished in an offshore oil rig explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon.  The explosion led to the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history (Fisk and Calkins). Five years later, manslaughter charges have been dropped against Robert Kaluza and Donald Vildrine, two BP managers, though Vildrine has plead guilty to violating the Clean Water Act.  He has agreed to pay $50,000 in restitution and perform 100 hours of community service hours.

        The article is a solid piece of legalistic journalism, discussing the facts of the case from the perspective of the attorneys involved.  However, what is unwritten is just as powerful as what is written.  The authors chose to highlight specific quotes from the lawyers involved that shows their own biases quite clearly.  

        According to the authors, Shaun Clarke, attorney for Kaluza stated in the initial arraignment that “the well-site managers were singled out as scapegoats” and that “as long as there’s a criminal charge out there, he [Kaluza] intends to completely clear his name at trial.”

        The fact that these quotes were purposely written into the article, while quotes to the contrary were omitted, would lead me to believe that the authors felt they were most important in conveying their own bias about the case.  

        In my eyes it is quite obvious that the well site managers, in particular Kaluza and Vildrine are being hounded and ridden as scapegoats. They are being put in the forefront as the sole violators in the deaths and pollutions acts of the company as a whole. David Rainey, BP’s former vice president of exploration, won acquittal of a federal charge where he lied to prosecutors in connection with company information in regards to the size of spill. It is also noted that Kurt Mix, a former BP engineer, pleaded guilty in November to a misdemeanor of deleting text messages.

As a whole the article puts in the forefront only two men, whom neither is at the top of the food chain. The company, which is BP, seems to be minimizing executive risk in connection to the deaths and pollution to numerous environments. Yes, the company paid billions in restitution, however there is still executives who were the main decisions makers in the overall process who were negligent long before the catastrophe. The risk management in question in the Deepwater Horizon disaster involved understanding the hazards drill crews faced, as well as the checks and balances meant to prevent such accidents. That alone is not solely on the well site managers.

Analysis of: “3 Ways to Bridge the Gap Between Risk and Customer Engagement” by Rachel Alt-Simmons

According to Rachel Alt-Simmons, actuarial science has been around since the late 1700s and, while the science has continued to improve and evolve based on medical advances and rising life expectancy, customer service relations has lagged sorely behind.  In her article, Alt-Simmons makes the case for improving customer relations to, thereby, improve a company’s overall bottom line.  She offers readers three ways to bridge this gap between risk and customer engagement.

She encourages insurance companies to have discussions with their clients throughout the coverage period; to view their actuarial tables as personas, rather than bits of data; and to reverse their company mantra to become “customer-centric” instead of “risk-centric”.

        Customers are becoming more knowledgeable daily, and are not only seeking; but in a sense demanding more recognition in the eyes of the company. Society is becoming more disconnect with one another as technology takes over all communication efforts, yet when it comes to business engagement individuals want to feel like they are more than just a bottom line number. The shift has begun to where adjustments must be made to more “customer-centric relationships”.

        Actuarial science may have been around since the late 1700s, but clearly, according to Alt-Simmons, customer service techniques are due for some evolution. I am in agreement with her. It is becoming less of a trend, and more of a realization that customers are wanting to have a more distinct persona in their relationships with customers.  

Analysis of: “5 Legal Decisions that Impacted the Insurance Industry” by Kymberly Kochis and Veronica M. Wayner

        According to Kymberly Kochis and Veronica M. Wayner, the past twelve months have been brought many changes to the insurance industry.  Supreme Court decisions have brought about these changes and the article discusses five major legal decisions that have impacted the insurance industry.  While all the case synopsis were interesting and certainly affect the industry, there were a couple in particular that were groundbreaking in nature.

        Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. J.R. Marketing LLC is a very intriguing case due to the fact that it is an insurer suing a policy holder’s legal counsel for a reimbursement of “fee’s” that they paid out. The Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. claimed that the fee’s were “excessive” and “unreasonable”. The reason why this case could end being such a cornerstone game changer is the fact that The Hartford first lost the case, then in an appeal to the California Supreme Court they in turn won the case. This alone can be groundbreaking and murky waters for individuals to tread in when it comes to their legal counsel going up against insurance companies. The threat for firms to get sued over their fee’s is scary and imminent. If courts trend to uphold those terms it could either cause for firms to discontinue their services with representing clients against insurance companies, or further complicate the legal system with various lawsuits and complaints on behalf of firms getting sued.

        Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America et al. v. Federal Recovery Services was a case that was the first of its kind, which is very rare to say in 2015 but is however on the uptick in regards to cyber activity. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America et al issued a cyber policy to Federal Recovery Services that covered “errors and omissions wrongful acts”. Federal Recovery as an organization willingly refused to release data that they held for their client Global Fitness. Due to the cyber nature of the case Federal Recovery Services believed that Travelers would cover them under the policy that they agreed to. However Travelers refused, and in turn was sued by Federal Recovery Services on the grounds of a policy breach. The Utah court ruled in favor of Travelers, inciting that the reason for their ruling was due to the company willing and knowingly holding data. This was the first case of its kind and will not be the last. In hopes of more cyber security and insurance there should be a lot of court cases preceding until rules on cyber policy are better ironed out.