Wednesday, June 25, 2008 ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaskans are describing Wednesday’s ruling in Exxon v. Baker, the case over punitive damages from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, as a bitter disappointment and justice undelivered. In the ruling the amount of money Exxon Mobil would have been required to pay Alaskans affected by the oil spill was slashed about 80 percent, from $2.5 billion to $507.5 million. Exxon argued before the court that all punitive damages awarded by an Anchorage jury and then reduced by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be tossed out altogether. The company argued that punitive damages were not applicable under maritime law. Exxon lost on that point, likely because a Justice Samuel Alito — thought to be favorable to Exxon’s position — recused himself from the debate since he owns company stock. Alito’s recusal paved the way for a 4-4 split among justices. Consequently, the issue turned to damages. If Exxon was to be required to pay damages, how much should they pay? The court decided on a 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, a number decided by the court itself and one that Alaskans feel was a lowball. Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses. Relapsed alcoholic ship captain Joseph Hazlewood’s 1989 tanker crash sent millions of gallons of crude oil gushing into Prince William Sound and launched angry, adamant calls …
