Third party liability temporal and financial limitations

Third party liability temporal and financial limitations

(h) Report of the Secretary General concerning temporal and financial limitations on third party liability claims (A 51 903)

There seems no reason to limit the non applicability of statutory limitations to civil claims for reparations.

For example, in the C Report, income loss claims were limited to seven times a claimant s monthly salary. C Report, pp. 192 93.

Accordingly, the WBC Claim as amended amounts to US 950,715,662.

Further, the Panel finds that to rely on the revised category D claim and its supporting evidence would be tantamount to allowing the individual claimant to file a new claim after the deadline for filing of claims.

Iraq contends that Iran has not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim unit, and that the documentation and information provided are inadequate.

(a) No upper limits be placed on justified claims

The WBC Claim as amended by the Claimant can be analyzed as follows

Subsequent to the oral proceedings the Claimant amended the WBC Claim, which resulted in a reduction of the amount claimed by US 915,209.

1. The established filing deadlines are extended for the following claims

Accordingly, the claim for loss of profits on contracts is time barred and the Panel has considered the original claim for the loss of receivables.

At its June 2005 session, the Governing Council established a final deadline of 30 September 2006 for submitting Governments with currently unlocated claimants to locate such claimants and to inform the secretariat of any claimant who was located so that the claimant could receive payment of his or her compensation award.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

Having carefully examined the manner in which the claimant originally presented and described his claim and the manner in which he re characterized it in his article 15 34 response, the Panel is of the view that the claimant is attempting to advance a number of new claims after the filing deadline.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL OF COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO REVIEW THE WELL BLOWOUT CONTROL CLAIM

This claimant seeks compensation in the amount of USD 171,000,600 for D8 D9 business losses allegedly sustained by his unincorporated business as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Such a limit has been introduced recently in respect of reimbursements for death and disability benefits compensation and liability for third party claims.

Third F4 instalment, claim No. 5000450 and fourth F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000454 and 5000466.

These claims lack either the claimant's signature or evidence of authority to act on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

The Office found that claimants had abused the system by filing false claims with the assistance of accounting companies in Kuwait.

Saudi Arabia states that all the compensatory projects should be viewed holistically as measures to compensate for the damage to its resources.

One claim in the sixth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the fifth instalment.

A total of 37 confirmed matches were identified, which related either to claims filed by the same claimant within the bedoun programme or to claims filed by the same claimant in different claim categories.

Specifically, the secretariat, in valuing the claimant's D6 (loss of income) claim, incorrectly treated it as a duplicate of the claimant's C6 (salary loss) claim, resulting in an erroneous reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant for his C6 claim.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3011224 the claimant asserted, in addition to her own losses, a salary loss on behalf of her husband.

Thus, all claimants have the right to pursue their claims through other mechanisms. This includes claimants covered by paragraph 5 of Decision 43, taken on 1 October 1997, concerning the Egyptian Workers Claims.

Some claims in the fourth instalment lacked either (a) the claimant's signature affirming the information provided in the claim and the losses being claimed, or (b) evidence of authority on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

GE.96 64795 Introduction On 30 July 1993, KUWAIT OIL COMPANY (K.S.C.) ( KOC or the Claimant ) filed with the United Nations Compensation Commission (the UNCC or the Commission ) a claim referred to by the Claimant as the Well Blowout Control Claim (the WBC Claim ).

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

The monitoring and assessment claims of Iran that were awarded funding in the first F4 instalment and are relevant to claim No. 5000287 are claim Nos. 5000392, 5000393 and 5000395.

The fourthsecond group of overlapping claims initially consisted of E4 claims related to 39seven category C claims and 24 category C and D claims.

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

Due to the large number of bedoun claims filed and the time constraints for the completion of the bedoun programme, the Panel was requested to adopt expedited procedures in its review of bedoun claims.

duplicate claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant under the late claims programme in the same category.

JordanTwo claims reported in the second instalment were found to be duplicates of claims also reported in the same instalment.

In total, over 45,000 duplicate claims in category A claims had been corrected through the mechanisms designed by the category A Panel.

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

The average amount claimed for the claims in this instalment is about USD 2 million, compared to about USD 820,000 for all claims, about USD 934,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 861,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme.

The median amount claimed is about USD 470,000 for claims in this instalment, compared with about USD 263,000 for all claims, about USD 335,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 276,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme Approximately 75 per cent of the claims in this instalment contain D8 D9 business losses in relation to unincorporated establishments in Kuwait.

The E4 claimant Al Nuwaisib Building Requirement was originally considered in the eighteenth instalment of E4 claims where it had been considered as overlapping with a category C claim filed by a different individual claimant.

As stated above, the eligible category D Palestinian late claims have a higher incidence of loss types and higher amounts claimed than claims in the regular category D claims programme, giving rise to a potential risk of overstatement of the claims.

At times the claim preparers appeared to be more familiar with the claims than the claimants.

In the view of the Panel, this should involve the services of a qualified senior epidemiologist.