Veep Nominee Palin and the Exxon Valdez Case

A lawyer for the class of Alaskan commercial fishers who sought punitive damages stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 confirmed this afternoon that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- Sen. John McCain's pick for vice president -- and her husband Todd, both commercial fishers at the time, could have qualified as members of the class. But neither filed claims by the deadline this past February. "They were both eligible to participate," says Stanford Law School professor and Davis Wright Tremaine partner Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court last term.

Then and now, Todd Palin fished for salmon in Bristol Bay, which is far from Prince William Sound where the devastating spill occurred. But Fisher said that early in the litigation, the "mandatory punitive damages class" was defined to include both those who fished in "oiled fisheries" that were damaged directly, and "unoiled fisheries" like Bristol Bay, where the damage was less direct. Fisher says claimants from Bristol Bay and other distant areas asserted they were harmed when the price of their product was depressed after the spill. But eligible members of the class had to file claims by February, and Fisher said the Palins did not do so.

If they had, Fisher says, they would have been eligible to receive a payment that is less than the roughly $15,000 that directly injured fishers will receive under the reduced punitive damage award that resulted from the Supreme Court ruling in June. In that June 25 decision, the Court said the punitive damage award, originally set by a jury at $5 billion, was excessive under maritime law and knocked it down to $507 million. Last week Exxon Mobil agreed to begin paying out some of the award, though a dispute remains over interest.

Fisher notes that Alaska and Gov. Palin were strongly supportive of the plaintiffs in the litigation. "The justices Sen. McCain likes," Fisher added, were were not as supportive. In the 5-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was in the majority that cut the punitive damages award, and Justice Samuel Alito Jr. recused because he owns Exxon Mobil stock. The others in the majority written by Justice David Souter were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy.

After the Supreme Court ruled, Gov. Palin was critical of the outcome. “I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” she was quoted as saying. “While the decision brings some degree of closure to Alaskans suffering from 19 years of litigation and delay, the Court gutted the jury’s decision on punitive damages.” She also said, “It is tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision. My heart goes out to those affected, especially the families of the thousands of Alaskans who passed away while waiting for justice.”

Comments

[Keith]

I agree with Frank. I am not sure I understand Tony Mauro's point, but I get the impression that he was trying to suggest that the Palins were somehow being magnanimous by not filing claims. At any rate, a change is needed both in the White House and the Supreme Court, and I fervently believe that electing Obama is the only way to bring about that change.

[Jack]

Did they wirte thier "losses" off their taxes?

[James Johnston]

I was - and am - a Bristol Bay set gillnet permit holder; my fishing sites are a couple of miles from Todd Palin's.

I didn't submit a claim for the very reason the previous poster suggested about Palin: any damage we might have suffered was slight to the point of invisibility. The Prince William Sound pink run may not have recovered - no relevance to the price paid for Bristol Bay reds. The PWS herring fishery in its various forms was wrecked - again, no relevance. The Chilean farm salmon industry has damaged Bristol Bay - but that's competition/product substitution.

In reality, the check Bristol Bay permit holders will receive will probably cover the postage and time involved at as much as a hundred dollars an hour. On the other hand, it makes it more difficult to claim one never tries to get something for nothing.

[wayne]

THIS IS A BUNCH OF CRAP I NEVER UNDERSTAND HOW FISHERMEN OR ANYONE OUT OF OUR AREA CAN GET MONEY. I OWENED HOUSES AND MANAGED SEAFOOD PLANT IN KODIAK AND THE LOCAL FISHERMEN AND THE CANNERY WORKERS ARE THE ONES THAT SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE MONEY. THEY WERE THE ONE'S OUT OF WORK AND THE ONE'S THAT THERE LIFE WAS BROKEN UP. SOME ATTORNEYS WILL RETIRE AFTER THIS BUFFET FOR THEM IS OVER. THIS WHOLE THING HAS A LOT OF STINK TO IT AFTER 20 YEARS. THE PEOPLE WITH CLAIMS AND ALL THE GOOD OLD BOYS WHO WEREN'T EVEN IN THE STATE. THE CANNERYS GET THE BIG MONEY FOR FISH AND LOSS. BUT DID THE CANNERY WORKER GET PAID FOR THAT FISH? NO THEY DID NOT?

[anon]

Of course she was all for a big settlement against Exxon. Her husband works for BP.

[Frank Mullen]

I'm not sure what Tony Mauro's point is. Yes, Todd Palin may have qualified for a really small claim because he was the permit holder for the fishery. I would be surprised if Sarah was a permit holder in 1989, and doubt that she would have qualified as a claimant. Todd, like most others in Bristol Bay, did not file a claim because the potential payout was worth less than the postage on the envelope.

I hope that Tony's point was that Alaskan fishermen got screwed by the Bush court, and that the only way to reverse the trend is to elect Obama, who will likely fill Supreme Court vacancies with individuals who care about justice for people, justice for ALL people, and not justice for the wealthy and the corporate interest only.

Frank Mullen
Homer, Alaska