Exxon rejected by Supreme Court in appeal of $105M verdict

The U.S. Supreme Court rejects Exxon Mobil's (XOM +0.3%) appeal of a $105M jury verdict it was ordered to pay for contaminating underground water in NYC with a gasoline additive.

XOM argued unsuccessfully that any award was premature because the city isn’t planning to use the disputed wells in Queens for another 15-20 years.

New York had sued XOM and other oil companies in 2003, alleging they knew the substance would pollute groundwater; a New York-based federal appeals court last year upheld the 2009 jury verdict against the company.

From other sites
Comments (11)
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5897) | Send Message
    The Roberts court is still ultra pro-corporate - with its motto of afflict the suffering poor and uplift the affluent, like the political party that it blatantly supports. Crumbs handed out once in a while will not change its basic image.
    21 Apr 2014, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • wam350
    , contributor
    Comments (173) | Send Message
    varan .. Seems there is no way to satisfy you!
    21 Apr 2014, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5897) | Send Message
    Well, how about not caring so much about the 'free speech' of the handful of thousand or so people who can shell out more than $123000 in an election cycle for political donations. That will satisfy me.
    21 Apr 2014, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message


    And you expect unions to be exempt I assume?
    21 Apr 2014, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
    Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.
    21 Apr 2014, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
    Pretty Ironic that MTBE was an additive they only used as a result of EPA mandates for an oxygenate during the winter months, to curb CO emissions in the winter.
    21 Apr 2014, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • StepUp
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
    I am just shocked NYC had groundwater; who knew?
    21 Apr 2014, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • gsp2114
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
    XON owned this site. For decades the site in question has been labeled one of the most polluted in the country; from XON petroleum based business operations.


    Always trying to run away, with non shareholders picking up external costs.
    I'm glad that the court ruled in a manner that is consistent with fines levied by the EPA for NOT FOLLOWING SAFE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE. Simple.


    XON needs to conserve cash and be very efficient, just like they always claim to be. Their days are numbered as a corporate behemoth, and well known cash cow for its shareholders.


    Corporate Governance at XON has not changed. An economic juggernaut that continues to use money as an instrument of power to exert pressure on claimants in a most shameful manner.


    The history of XON is not a timeline of..oops, I made an error. Their history is replete with being the cause of too many ecosystem disasters. Safety lapses that in many cases could have been avoided, instead caused human agony.


    XON does not make strategic decisions that are not well thought out; in advance, or do they?


    XON claims that they care about people, their workers, the environment. But still as of today no advancement in adapting and operationalizing predictable, state of the art blowout preventers are in service. Thats right still, no progress from XON or for that matter any of the big five oil miners since the Gulf Disaster. (NRDC, April 20, 2014).


    But as many overlooked the deftness of none other the French detective Clousseau a/k/a the Pink Panther, XON is a walking dead company with its current business model and portfolio.


    Solar is now growing 36% YOY here in the states.
    Battery technology and micro-grids, coupled with a straight flush of powerful renewable E products and services connected to a broader based, less centralized grid. Including a suite of new battery technologies that will store PV generated E. Moving us away will from Li to liquid iron; ARTX is already selling this new battery technology.


    Does XON care?


    Thats right care?


    Make up your own mind.
    21 Apr 2014, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message


    You guys are funny.


    Advanced batteries, brought to you by XOM, who else?






    21 Apr 2014, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • SWG1
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
    Note that the polluting additive in question (MTBE) was mandated by the EPA.
    21 Apr 2014, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Herknav
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    GSP2114, Who is XON, Exxon-Mobil goes by XOM last I checked. Get a clue!
    24 Apr 2014, 07:22 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs