After viewing a brief filed by Exxon Mobil Corp. before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case voiced little faith in the high court to settle fairly a 19-year-old battle to award punitive damages to some 30,000 claimants.

“We are in a cat fight,” Dave Oesting, lead counsel for plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview from Anchorage today.

Oesting, who confirmed Exxon’s brief on merits was filed before the court late Monday, said it has no real substantial difference from Exxon’s previous arguments presented to the court, except the giant oil company detailed its position that it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of the ship’s captain, who violated company rules.

Exxon contends it should not be held liable for the actions of Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who was piloting the Exxon Valdez supertanker when it hit Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound and ran aground March 14, 1989, spilling 10.8 million gallons of oil along Alaska shores, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Plaintiffs argue in the class-action suit that Exxon and Hazelwood should not be separated from responsibility.

Plaintiffs argue Exxon knew Hazelwood had sought treatment for drinking, and began drinking again.

“Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters,” plaintiffs said in a previous court action.

The issue is one among three primary arguments Exxon is making before the high court.

The other two issues Exxon makes in the brief are that under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Congress specified criminal and civil penalties for maritime conduct that do not include punitive damages, raising the question of whether the courts can expand federal maritime law established by Congress.

The other issue is that Exxon argues even if $2.5 billion in punitive damages could be reaffirmed, the amount is excessive and should be lower within limits of maritime law and due process.

“We can win on the merits, but if this case is decided on politics, I have little faith in what the court might do,” Oestling said. “On merits, there is nothing in the Exxon brief that we are not prepared to meet.”

Oestling said it is possible Justice Samuel Alito could come back into the case by selling stock connecting him to Exxon. Alito previously recused himself because of stock ownership.

Oestling also said he is not certain Chief Justice John Roberts will avoid letting politics interfere in the court battle.

“The disturbing part in this is that Exxon acts as if they have not yet had a trial,” Oestling said.

Plaintiffs are expected to file their arguments before the court Jan. 22, with oral arguments to begin before the high court in mid-February. A final decision could be rendered by mid-2008.

Interested are approximately 7,500 claimants of Kodiak origin in 51 groups, including salmon seiners and set-netters that stand to be recipients of the $2.5 billion if that amount is awarded.

There are an estimated 30,000 claimants in the suit including fishermen, landowners, Natives, local governments and businesses located throughout Alaska and other states. About 20 percent of the original claimants have died.

Mirror writer Bryan Martin can be reached via e-mail at bmartin@kodiakdailymirror.com.