DOCUMENT 2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
9/30/2015 5:31 PM
05-CV-2015-901208.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
JODY WISE CAMPBELL, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
City of Daphne, a municipality under
the State of Alabama

*
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
vs.
*
*
BP, PLC; BP EXPLORATION &
*
PRODUCTION, INC.; BP PRODUCTS *
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and BP
*
AMERICA, Inc.; TRANSOCEAN
*
DEEPWATER, INC.; TRANSOCEAN *
OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, *
INC.; ANADARKO PETROLEUM
*
CORPORATION; ANADARKO E&P
*
COMPANY, LP; MITSUI & CO. (USA), *
INC.; MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, LLC; *
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, *
INC.; CAMERON INTERNATIONAL *
CORPORATION f/k/a/ COOPER
*
CAMERON CORPORATION; BP
*
AMERICAN PRODUCTION CO.; and *
M-I, L.L.C.
*
*
Defendants.
*

CASE NO.: CV-2015-________

COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, City of Daphne (hereinafter “the City”), a municipality under the
State of Alabama, by and through its attorney of record, and files this complaint against the
Defendants, BP, PLC; BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP Products North America, Inc.; and
BP America, Inc.;
1.

The City is a political subdivision in the State of Alabama.

2.

The City suffered economic loss as a result of the April 20, 2011 failure of the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Well.

1 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

3.

Defendants are those entities who negligently, wantonly, and otherwise unlawfully
owned and/or operated said Well.

4.

Venue is proper because injury to the City occurred within Baldwin County, Alabama.

5.

On the City of Daphne’s information and belief, the State of Alabama submitted a
presentment under the Oil Pollution Act on behalf of Plaintiff and other political
subdivisions of the State of Alabama.

6.

The State of Alabama on August 12, 2010 filed those two certain lawsuits in the
Middle District of Alabama against Defendants, such lawsuits bearing Civil Action
Numbers 2:10-cv-00690 and 2:10-cv-00691, on behalf of the Stater of Alabama as well
as the State agencies, departments, and all political subdivisions thereof.

7.

The lawsuits cited in paragraph 5 above were transferred on November 9, 2010 to the
multi district litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana and organized into
Pleading Bundle C.1

8.

The Voluntary Master Complaint, Cross-Claim, and Third Party Complaint applying
Pleading Bundle C (hereinafter “Master Complaint”), filed on March 4, 2011, described
in paragraph 178 its plaintiffs as “local government entities or officials . . . in Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, who have suffered damage, destruction, or
diminution in value of property, loss of tax revenue, income and/or use, and/or costs of
response, removal, clean-up, restoration and/or remediation and/or other damages, losses,
and/or costs as a result of the oil spill by the oil rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of
Mexico on April 20, 2010.”

                                                            
1

Specifically, cases 2:10-cv-00690 and 2:10-cv-00691were transferred first into the eastern district of Louisiana
under 2:10-cv-4182 and 2:10-cv-4183, respectively. Cases 2:10-cv-4182 and 2:10-cv-4183 were then transferred to
the special multi-district division 2:10-md-02179 and organized under Pleading Bundle C.

2 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

9.

The Master Complaint sought class certification in paragraph 517 on behalf of “all
local government entities that claim losses due to damage, destruction, or diminution in
value of property; loss of tax revenue, income and/or use; costs of response, removal,
clean-up, restoration and/or remediation, including costs of increased public services;
civil and/or criminal penalties; and/or other damages, losses, and/or costs as a result of
the April 20, 2010 explosions and fire aboard, and sinking of, the Deepwater Horizon,
and the resulting Spill.”

10.

The Master Complaint in paragraph 518 further established an Alabama Subclass,
which included “All local government entities in Alabama that claim losses due to
damage, destruction, or diminution in value of property; loss of tax revenue, income
and/or use; costs of response, removal, clean-up, restoration and/or remediation,
including costs of increased public services; civil penalties; and/or other damages, losses,
and/or costs as a result of the April 20, 2010 explosions and fire aboard, and sinking of,
the Deepwater Horizon, and the resulting Spill.”

11.

The City of Daphne is a member of the class and subclass described in this
Complaint’s paragraphs 8 and 9.

12.

The principles of Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983),
which holds that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations “as to all
asserted members of the class” filing separate actions until a class certification is denied
or decertified, operate to toll the applicable statutes of limitations as to City of Daphne’s
claims brought herein.

See also American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538

(1974); First Baptist Church of Citronelle v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc., 409 So.2d
7276 (1981).

3 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

13.

The class certification in the Master Complaint was neither denied nor decertified.

I.
14.

Claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990

As a political subdivision of the State of Alabama and as a member of the class and
subclass alleged in the Master Complaint, the City of Daphne claims presentment and
applicable claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

15.

As a result of the Spill, the City is entitled to damages pursuant to 2702(b)(2)(A),
which provides for recovery of damages “for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of
use of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing the damage.”

16.

The City is also entitled to damages pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(B), which
provides for recovery of damages to real or personal property, including “damages for
injury to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, real or personal property,
which shall be recoverable by a claimant who owns or leases that property, including the
diminution in the value of their property.”

17.

The City is also entitled to damages pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(D) “equal to the
net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees, or net profit shares due to the injury, destruction,
or loss of real property, personal property, or natural resources . . . .”

18.

The City is further entitled to damages pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(F) “for net
costs of providing increased or additional public services during or after removal
activities, including protection from fire, safety, or health hazards, caused by” the Spill.

19.

Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the OPA, 33 U.S.C.
§ 2717(f)(2), the City seeks a declaratory judgment that is binding in this action and any
subsequent action or actions against Defendants, jointly and severally and without

4 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

limitation, that said Defendants are liable for removal costs and damages in this action
and in any subsequent action or actions.
20.

The City further seeks all damages available to it pursuant to the OPA.

II.

State Law Claims for Relief

A. Public Nuisance
21.

The Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs
as if fully restated here.

22.

The negligence Defendants caused and/or contributed to the blowout and subsequent
Spill that invaded and polluted the public waters of the City, damaging all persons who
came within the sphere of its operation, resulting in a devastating economic and
ecological disaster that has interfered, is interfering, and will continue to interfere with
the City’s interests and the use and enjoyment of the City waters, property, estuaries,
seabeds, animals, plants, beaches, shorelines, coastlines, islands, marshlands, and other
natural and economic resources of the City, which constitutes a public nuisance pursuant
to Ala Code § 6-5-120, et. seq. and/or common law.

23.

Defendants acted in an unreasonable manner in creating the nuisance described herein.

24.

As a direct and proximate result of the creation and continuing creation of a public
nuisance, the City and its citizens have suffered past, present, and future damages,
including, but not limited to, inconvenience, loss of income, loss of revenue for the City,
and a substantial increase in expenditures by the City to combat, abate, and remedy the
effects of the nuisance caused by the Defendants

5 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

25.

Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff, jointly and severally, to take all appropriate
actions to remedy and abate the harm to the environment and public health caused by the
public nuisance they created, and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

B. Private Nuisance

26.

The City realleges each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if
fully restated here.

27.

The negligence of Defendants caused and/or contributed to the blowout and
subsequent Spill which directly and proximately caused an invasion that has interfered
with the use and enjoyment of the waters, property, estuaries, seabeds, animals, plants,
beaches, shorelines, coastlines, islands, marshlands, and other natural and economic
resources of the City, and have materially diminished and continue to diminish the value
thereof, constituting a private nuisance pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-5-120, et. seq. and/or
common law.

28.

Defendants were under a duty to take positive action to prevent or abate the
interference, but failed to do so.

29.

The creation of the private nuisance by Defendants proximately caused past, present,
and future damages to the City by allowing oil, chemical dispersants, and other materials
and substances to contaminate Plaintiff’s property.

30.

As a direct and proximate result of the creation of the private nuisance, the City has
suffered past, present, and future damages, including, but not limited to, inconvenience,
loss of income, loss of tax base, loss of beneficial use, enjoyment, and exclusive
possession of City’s property, and diminished value of City’s properties, for which the
City is entitled to compensation.
6 

 

 DOCUMENT 2

31.

Defendants are liable to the City for actual and compensatory damages sustained as
the direct and proximate result of the private nuisance alleged herein.

C. Trespass
32.

The City realleges each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if
fully restated here.

33.

Defendants discharged a foreign polluting substance beyond the boundary of the
City’s property which they knew to a substantial certainty would, in due course, invade
and intrude upon the Plaintiff’s property, interfering with the Plaintiff’s exclusive
possessory rights and causing damage to the waters, property estuaries, seabeds, animals,
plants, beaches, shorelines, coastlines, islands, marshland and other natural and economic
resources of the Plaintiff, materially diminishing the value thereof.

34.

The invasion and resulting damage to the City was reasonably foreseeable by
Defendants when, owing to their gross negligence, willful, wanton and reckless
indifference for the rights of others, they intentionally and outrageously failed to exercise
reasonable care in the design, execution, and operation of the Macondo well and the
manufacture, maintenance, and operation of the Deepwater Horizon and its
appurtenances and equipment, which conduct resulted in the entry, intrusion, or invasion
on the Plaintiff’s property.

35.

This deliberate invasion and contamination of the property owned by the City
constitutes a trespass in violation of Alabama law and/or common law.

36.

As a direct and proximate result of their unauthorized invasion, entry and
contamination, Defendants have caused and continue to cause damage to the City,

7 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

including property damage, loss of income, the creation of conditions harmful to human
health and the environment, loss of exclusive possession of property, loss of tax revenue,
and diminished value of City’s property, for which Defendants are liable in damages.
37.

The intentional outrageous, malicious, oppressive, grossly negligent, willful, reckless,
fraudulent, and wanton conduct of Defendants, as described herein, entitles the City to
compensatory and punitive damages.

D. Negligence
38.

The City incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above herein
by reference.

39.

Defendants owed a duty to the City to exercise reasonable care with respect to the
construction, operation, inspection, training of personnel, repair, and maintenance of the
Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well; with respect to the disaster’s containment and
prevention planning prior to the disaster; and with respect to the containment and
prevention efforts following the initial oil disaster.

40.

Defendants had a heightened duty of care to the City because of the great danger and
environmental concerns associated with deepwater drilling for oil in the Gulf.

41.

Defendants, directly or through agents, breached their legal duties to the City by
failing to exercise reasonable care and were negligent in their construction, operation,
inspection, training of personnel, repair, and maintenance of the Deepwater Horizon and
the Macondo Well, and in planning and implementing oil containment and prevention
activities before and after the oil disaster.

8 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

42.

Upon information and belief, the City avers that the fire, explosion, resulting oil
disaster, and damages were caused by the Defendants’ negligence in the following nonexclusive particulars:
a. Failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well;
b. Failing to install a remote control acoustic switch to prevent the discharge of
crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico;
c. Failing to properly inspect the Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well to assure
that its equipment and personnel were fit for their intended purposes;
d. Acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of
others;
e. Failing to promulgate, implement, follow, and enforce procedures, rules, and
regulations pertaining to the safe operations of the Deepwater Horizon and
Macondo Well which, if they had been so promulgated, implemented, followed,
and enforced, would have averted the fire, explosion, sinking and oil disaster;
f. Operating the Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well with untrained and/or
unlicensed personnel;
g. Inadequately and negligently training and/or hiring personnel;
h. Failing to take appropriate action to avoid and/or mitigate the accident;
i. Negligently implementing policies and/or procedures to safely conduct offshore
operations in the Gulf of Mexico;
j. Failing to ascertain that the Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well and
associated equipment were free from defects and/or in proper working order;

9 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

k. Failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent and timely warn of the failure
of the Macondo Well or drilling rig;
1. Failing to timely bring the oil release under control;
m. Failing to provide appropriate accident prevention equipment;
n. Failing to undertake required tests and measurements of the Macondo Well and
to observe or respond to measuring devices that indicated excessive pressures in
the Macondo Well;
o. Failing to react to danger signs of catastrophic Macondo Well or drilling rig
failure;
p. Using defective BOPs that were improperly installed, maintained, and/or
operated;
q. Conducting well and well cap cementing operations improperly;
r. Failing to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was
regained by proper and adequate well control response;
s. Failing to assure that, once well control initially was lost, well control was
regained by proper and adequate surface containment and overboard discharge
and diversion of hydrocarbons;
t. Failing to prepare an adequate oil disaster response plan;
u. Failing to marshal sufficient resources to adequately respond to the oil disaster
and protect the waters, property, estuaries, seabed, animals, plants, beaches,
shorelines, coastlines, islands, marshlands, and other natural and economic
resources of the Plaintiff;

10 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

v. Failing to use BOPs appropriate for this drilling operation, and failure to test
the BOPs that were used;
w. Failing to follow plans and specifications applicable to the design and
construction of the Macondo Well and its components;
x. Failing to use safety devices adequate to arrest the flow of oil in the event of
catastrophic failure of the Macondo Well or drilling rig;
y. Failing to properly design the Deepwater Horizon and Macondo Well;
z. Concealing or misrepresenting the nature, size and extent of the oil disaster;
aa. Using dangerous chemical dispersants of an incorrect nature, type, and
amount;
bb. Acting in a manner that justifies imposition of punitive damages;
cc. The knowing use of dangerous dispersants; and
dd. Such other acts of negligence and omissions as will be shown at the trial of
this matter.
43.

The Defendants were also negligent in their attempts and omissions in trying to plug
the Macondo Well, contain the oil, and clean-up the oil disaster on City’s waters and
shores.

44.

Defendants knew or should have known that their negligent conduct would result in
the oil disaster, causing past, present, and future damages to the waters, property, tax
base, estuaries, seabed, animals, plants, beaches, shorelines, coastlines, islands,
marshlands, and other natural and economic resources of the City.

11 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

45.

The past, present, and future injuries to the City were also caused by or aggravated by
the fact that Defendants failed to take necessary actions to mitigate the danger associated
with their operations.

46.

In addition, the circumstances surrounding the fire, explosion, and sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon, and the resulting Spill are such that, according to common
knowledge and the experience of mankind, the accident could not have occurred had the
Defendants exercised the high degree of care imposed on them. Moreover, the
Defendants had full management and control of the instrumentalities that caused the oil
spill. The City, therefore, pleads the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

47.

As a direct and proximate result of the combining and concurring negligence of all
Defendants, the City has and will continue to be damaged, including but not limited to,
damages to natural resources and City’s properties, lost tax and other revenues, and direct
and indirect costs associated with oil disaster response actions.

48.

The City demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

E. Wantonness
49.

The City incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above herein
by reference.

50.

Defendants, directly or through agents, breached their legal duties to the City by
failing to exercise reasonable care and acted with reckless, willful, and wanton disregard
for the Plaintiff in the construction, operation, inspection, training of personnel, repair,

12 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

and maintenance of the Deepwater Horizon and the Macondo Well, and in planning and
implementing oil containment and prevention activities before and after the oil disaster.
51.

Upon information and belief, the City avers that the fire explosion and sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon, resulting Spill, and damages were caused by the Defendants’
reckless, willful, and wanton conduct as more fully set forth above.

52.

Defendants knew or should have known that their willful, wanton, and/or reckless
conduct would result in the oil disaster, causing past, present, and future damages to the
waters, property, tax base, estuaries, seabed, animals, plants, beaches, shorelines,
coastlines, islands, marshlands, and other natural and economic resources of the City.

53.

As a direct and proximate result of the combining and concurring wantonness of all
Defendants, the City has and will continue to be damaged, including but not limited to,
damages to natural resources and Plaintiff’s properties, lost tax and other revenues, and
direct and indirect costs associated with oil disaster response actions.

54.

The Defendants consciously or deliberately engaged in oppression, fraud, wantonness,
or malice with regard to the City and its citizens.

55.

The City demands judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for
compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants jointly and severally, for all

damages recoverable under applicable law.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard E. Davis, Jr.
RICHARD E. DAVIS, JR. (DAV189)
Attorney for Defendants
13 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

OF COUNSEL:
DAVIS & FIELDS, P.C.
Post Office Box 2925
Daphne, Alabama 36526
(251) 621-1555
(251) 621-1520, fax
rick@davis-fields.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Please serve defendants by certified mail.
BP, PLC
International Headquarters
1 St. James Square
London, SW1Y 4PD UK
BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
Registered Agent: C T Corporation System
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
BP Products North America, Inc.
Registered Agent: CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service
150 South Perry Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
BP America, Inc.
Registered Agent: C T Corporation System
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
MOEX Offshore 2007, L.L.C.
Registered Agent:C T Corporation
1209 Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

14 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.)
Registered Agent: C T Corporation
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Andarko E&P Company, LP
Registered Agent: C T Corporation
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Registered Agent: C T Corporation
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Transocean Deepwater, Inc.
Registered Agent:Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.
800 Brazos, suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
Registered Agent: Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.
800 Brazos, suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Halliburton Energy Service, Inc.
Registered Agent: C T Corporation
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Cameron International Corporation
Registered Agent: C T Corporation
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
M-I, L.L.C.
Registered Agent: Capitol Corporate Services, Inc.
150 South Perry Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Halliburton Energy Service, Inc.
Registered Agent: C T Corporation
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
15 
 

 DOCUMENT 2

Montgomery, Alabama 36104
 

BP, PLC
Registered Agent: C T Corporation System
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
 

BP American Production Co.
Registered Agent: C T Corporation System
2 North Jackson Street, Suite 605
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
 
 
 
 

/s/ Richard E. Davis, Jr.
RICHARD E. DAVIS, JR.

16