When a Drone Strikes an Oil Platform in Another Country: Why This Is Not a US Case — and What to Do If Your Situation Is Different
You are reading this because someone you care about was hurt on an offshore drilling platform in Kuwait — a worker injured when a hostile drone struck a facility operated by the Kuwait Oil Company, during a period of active military strikes between the United States and Iran. Three border posts in northern Kuwait were also attacked. The Kuwaiti defence ministry reported the incidents. One worker was injured. We are going to tell you the truth about this, straight, because that is what you deserve right now.
This is not a case that a United States personal-injury law firm can prosecute. No US court can hear it. No US tort statute reaches it. No US insurance regime covers it. We know that is hard to hear when someone you love has been hurt — but false hope is worse than no hope, and the honest answer is the one that actually helps you move toward whatever recovery exists.
What we can do — and what this page does — is explain exactly why, in plain language, so you understand the legal terrain. Then we tell you when an offshore oil platform injury IS a case we can take, because the line between “not a US case” and “a strong US case” can turn on facts you might not realize matter: the worker’s citizenship, the employer’s nationality, where the platform sits, and what body of law governs the work. If your situation shares even one thread with a US nexus — a US-citizen worker, a US-contractor employer, a US-flagged vessel — the picture changes completely, and that is when you call us.
The Hard Truth: This Incident Falls Outside the Reach of US Courts
The attack on the Kuwait Oil Company offshore platform and the three northern border posts occurred entirely within Kuwait — a sovereign nation in the Persian Gulf region. Kuwait’s northern border posts sit along its frontier with Iraq. The offshore drilling platform sits in Kuwaiti territorial waters. No US highway, city, county, state, or federal jurisdiction is implicated. This is a foreign military and geopolitical event, not a domestic United States personal-injury matter.
What does that mean in practice? It means that every element required to bring a personal-injury or wrongful-death claim in a US court is missing here:
No US defendant. The platform operator is the Kuwait Oil Company — a state-owned enterprise of the Kuwaiti government. The drone operator is unidentified. There is no US-based company, no US insurer, and no US-regulated entity on the defendant side of the equation.
No US venue. A US court needs jurisdiction over the parties and a connection to the forum. Here, the incident happened in Kuwaiti territory, the defendant is a Kuwaiti state entity, the evidence is in Kuwaiti custody, and the governing law would be Kuwaiti domestic law — not the law of Texas, California, or any other US state.
No applicable US tort framework. The statutes and doctrines that govern injury claims in US courts — state negligence law, state wrongful-death acts, the Jones Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, OSHA — each require some nexus to the United States. That nexus is absent here. The offshore injury and accident practice covers cases where that connection exists. This incident does not.
The Political-Question Doctrine: Why Federal Courts Close Their Doors to Ongoing Military Conflicts
Even if you could somehow name a defendant and find a courthouse, a federal judge would almost certainly refuse to hear the case — not because the injury is not real, but because of a doctrine older than the Republic itself.
The political-question doctrine and foreign-sovereign-immunity principles would likely bar any US court from adjudicating claims arising from a military drone strike during an active US-Iran armed exchange.
That is the reality, stated plainly. Here is what each of those doctrines means:
The political-question doctrine is a principle of US constitutional law under which federal courts decline to decide matters that are constitutionally committed to the executive or legislative branches — the President and Congress — or that are beyond the institutional capacity of courts to resolve. Active military conflicts between nations sit at the very center of this doctrine. When strikes are being exchanged between the United States and Iran, a federal judge will not step into the middle of that conflict to decide who is responsible for a drone that struck a platform in Kuwait. The court will say: this is a question for diplomats, for the State Department, for international tribunals — not for a jury.
Foreign sovereign immunity is a second, independent wall. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign governments and their instrumentalities — including state-owned companies like the Kuwait Oil Company — are generally immune from suit in US courts. There are narrow exceptions (commercial activity, certain terrorism claims), but a military drone strike on a sovereign’s infrastructure during an armed conflict does not fit them. The Kuwait Oil Company, as a state-owned enterprise, would almost certainly be immune. And the unidentified drone operator — if a state military force — would be protected by the same sovereign immunity, or simply beyond the reach of US process entirely.
These are not loopholes or technicalities. They are structural bars. A case that hits either wall is not a case that a better lawyer or a different strategy can get past. It is simply not in the US court system’s power to hear.
What a US Personal-Injury Claim Actually Requires — and Why This Incident Has None of It
To understand why this case cannot be brought in the United States, it helps to understand what a US personal-injury claim actually needs to survive. Every case we handle — every truck crash, every refinery accident, every offshore injury — must clear three thresholds before a single piece of evidence is gathered:
Subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must have the authority to hear this type of case. US federal courts hear cases involving federal questions (maritime law, federal statutes) or diversity of citizenship (parties from different states, amount in controversy met). State courts hear cases arising under state law. A drone strike on a Kuwaiti oil platform during an international military conflict does not present a US federal question — the governing law is international, not domestic — and there is no US-state diversity basis because the parties are foreign.
Personal jurisdiction. The court must have power over the defendant. This requires the defendant to have sufficient contacts with the forum state — doing business there, being incorporated there, having committed the injury there. A Kuwaiti state-owned oil company operating a platform in Kuwaiti waters, and an unidentified foreign military drone operator, do not have the kind of contacts with any US state that would give a court power over them.
Venue. Even when jurisdiction exists, the case must be filed in the right place — where the defendant resides, where the events occurred, or where the defendant does business. Every possible venue here points to Kuwait, not to the United States.
This incident fails all three. That is not a close call. That is not a case we decline because it is hard. It is a case that does not exist in the US legal system.
When an Offshore Oil Platform Injury IS a US Case — the Line That Matters
Here is where the picture changes, and where the firm’s actual work lives. Not every offshore platform injury is a foreign military event. In fact, the vast majority of offshore platform injuries that we see — and every offshore platform case we handle — involves a US nexus that pulls the claim squarely into federal maritime law. The difference between “not a US case” and “a powerful US case” turns on facts that are specific and knowable:
The Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 30104). If the injured worker is a seaman — a crew member with a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation — and the employer is a US employer, the Jones Act gives that worker the right to sue the employer in front of a jury, with a causation standard so favorable that the employer is liable if its negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury. This is one of the most powerful injury statutes in American law. But it requires a seaman-employer relationship and a US nexus. A worker on a Kuwaiti platform, employed by a Kuwaiti state company, is not a Jones Act seaman — no matter how badly they were hurt.
The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 901–950). If the injured worker is a longshore or harbor worker — loading, unloading, repairing, or building vessels on the waterfront — the LHWCA provides no-fault compensation from the employer plus a separate negligence claim against a negligent vessel under § 905(b). The situs must be on US navigable waters or an adjoining area, and the worker must be engaged in maritime employment. A Kuwaiti platform in Kuwaiti territorial waters does not satisfy the situs requirement.
The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA, 46 U.S.C. § 30302). If a death occurs more than three nautical miles from the shore of the United States, DOHSA provides a federal cause of action — but only for the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s spouse, parent, child, or dependent relative, and only for pecuniary (financial) losses. The three-mile line is outcome-determinative: a death at 2.9 miles may allow broader state-law damages; at 3.1 miles, DOHSA strips non-economic recovery. But DOHSA applies to deaths on the high seas adjacent to the United States — not to a drone strike on a Kuwaiti platform in the Persian Gulf.
The offshore injury practice exists for workers who fall within these statutes — US-citizen rig workers, US-contractor employees, crew on US-flagged vessels, longshore workers on the Gulf Coast. When the worker, the employer, the vessel, or the waters connect to the United States, these federal statutes create rights that foreign law does not. That is the line. And if your situation crosses it — even partially — the case that looked impossible becomes one of the strongest in American injury law.
If you want to understand what an offshore accident lawyer actually does and whether your situation qualifies, this guide walks through the work.
The Evidence That Exists — and Why It Is Inaccessible to US Litigants
In a US offshore injury case, the evidence is on a clock and we move fast to freeze it. Here, the evidence exists — but it is held by sovereign military forces and foreign government entities, and there is no civilian preservation pathway for a US firm. Let us name what exists and why it is out of reach:
Drone debris and forensic remnants of the hostile UAV. The wreckage of the drone — if any survived — could identify the weapon system, its origin state, and its flight path. This is the kind of forensic evidence that in a US case we would secure immediately through a preservation letter and an accident reconstruction expert. But here, this evidence is collected by sovereign military forces within hours of the strike. It is either classified intelligence or destroyed in the field. No private US litigant can access it.
Kuwait Oil Company platform damage assessments and worker injury records. The company’s own files would document the extent of damage to the platform, the nature of the worker’s injury, and the internal investigation. In a US case, these would be discoverable through subpoena and production demands. Here, they are governed by Kuwaiti internal corporate and government procedures — inaccessible to US litigation entirely.
Kuwaiti defence ministry investigation records. The official state attribution of the attack — who launched the drone, from where, and why — would be in the defence ministry’s classified investigation file. This is sovereign military intelligence. No private US litigant can compel its production, and no US court would order a foreign sovereign to produce its military intelligence.
This is the evidence clock in a foreign military incident: the records exist, but they are behind walls a US law firm cannot scale. In a domestic offshore case, by contrast, the evidence dies on schedules we can beat — the six-month log retention for carriers under 49 CFR § 395.8(k), the 30-day surveillance video loop, the physical wreckage that must be preserved before the salvage yard crushes it. We know how to win that race. But there is no race to run here, because the evidence is in sovereign custody from the first hour.
What the Injured Worker’s Actual Recourse Looks Like
If US courts are closed, where does that leave the injured worker and their family? The answer is in Kuwait — and it is real, even if it is not the system you were searching for.
Kuwaiti labor law. The worker’s relationship with the Kuwait Oil Company is governed by Kuwait’s domestic labor law regime, including any state-owned-enterprise employment protections. If the company failed to evacuate workers from the platform during an active military exchange despite the foreseeability of hostilities, a worker’s compensation or employer-negligence claim might theoretically arise — but in Kuwaiti courts, under Kuwaiti law, not US courts.
Kuwaiti workers’ compensation. Kuwait, like most nations, has a system of compensation for workplace injuries. The injured worker’s recourse likely runs through that system, administered by Kuwaiti government agencies and the employer’s internal insurance framework.
International claims processes. In rare circumstances, if the attack is attributed to a state sponsor of terrorism, there may be international claims mechanisms or US-government-administered compensation programs that apply — but these are narrow, slow, and entirely separate from the US personal-injury tort system. They are not cases a US plaintiff firm prosecutes.
The appropriate referral for any family in this situation is to a Kuwaiti-licensed attorney who handles employer-injury or state-compensation claims under Kuwaiti law. That is the honest path. We will say it clearly: if you contact us about this specific incident, we will tell you we cannot represent you, explain why, and point you toward the system that can.
The Insurance and Compensation Reality in a Foreign Military Incident
In a domestic offshore injury case, we would be mapping the insurance tower — the employer’s workers’ comp carrier, the vessel owner’s P&I club, the excess liability layers, the UM/UIM coverage — because that is where the recovery comes from. Here, the insurance picture is entirely different:
There is no US commercial motor carrier involved. No FMCSA-regulated policy. No MCS-90 endorsement. No US-standard auto or general-liability tower to climb. The mechanism of injury was a hostile drone strike on a sovereign nation’s infrastructure — an act of war, not a commercial accident. Insurance policies, where they exist, are Kuwaiti and governed by Kuwaiti law.
In the act-of-war context, traditional insurance coverage often excludes war and military action — meaning even the Kuwaiti insurance framework may have limitations that a Kuwaiti attorney would need to navigate. This is not a tower we can climb for you. It is not a tower that exists in the US legal system at all.
What We Would Do Differently If the Facts Were Different — When the Offshore Injury Is a US Case
Here is where the education becomes useful in a way that goes beyond this one incident. If the worker on that platform had been a US citizen — employed by a US defense contractor, on a US-flagged supply vessel, or working in US territorial waters — the entire legal picture would invert. The same injury, under different jurisdictional facts, becomes one of the strongest claims in American injury law. Let us walk through what that case looks like, because it is the case we actually handle:
The preservation letter goes out the day you call. In a US offshore case, the first letter we send orders the employer, the vessel owner, and every third party to freeze every piece of evidence — the platform’s surveillance footage, the crew’s logs, the equipment maintenance records, the voyage data recorder, the weather and sea conditions, the safety management system file. Federal maritime law and general maritime principles impose preservation duties. We enforce them.
The Jones Act featherweight standard. If the worker qualifies as a seaman, the employer is liable if its negligence played any part — even the slightest — in producing the injury. That is not a standard the defense can easily escape. It is the lowest causation bar in American injury law, borrowed from the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed it as recently as 2011.
Maintenance and cure. From the moment a seaman is injured in the service of the vessel, the employer owes daily living money and all medical expenses — regardless of fault — until the worker reaches maximum medical improvement. And if the employer stonewalls those payments, the Supreme Court held in 2009 that punitive damages are available for willful failure to pay.
Unseaworthiness. Separate from negligence, a vessel owner owes the crew an absolute, non-delegable warranty that the vessel and its appurtenances are reasonably fit for their intended use. If the platform, the vessel, or the equipment was not reasonably safe — and that failure caused the injury — the owner is liable without any showing of fault at all.
These are the tools of the offshore injury practice. They are powerful. They are real. They apply when the US nexus exists — and they do not apply when it does not.
If you want to understand what happens when a worker falls from an oil rig and the Jones Act applies, this resource walks through the mechanics.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do When a Loved One Is Hurt on a Foreign Platform
Even though this specific incident is not a US case, the practical steps in the first hours after an offshore platform injury — wherever it happens — follow a similar logic. If your situation shares any thread with a US connection, these are the steps that matter:
Medical first. The injured worker’s immediate medical care is the priority — and in a foreign military context, that may mean evacuation to a regional trauma center. Document everything: the injury description, the treatment timeline, the names of treating providers. In a US case, the medical record from the first hour is the foundation of the damages proof.
Report through the employer’s chain. The worker’s employer — wherever it is based — should be notified and should generate an incident report. In a US case, that report is evidence. In a foreign context, it may be the only contemporaneous record the family ever sees.
Do not sign anything. If anyone — an employer representative, an insurance adjuster, a contractor — presents a release, a settlement offer, or a “statement of facts” for the worker or family to sign, do not sign it without legal counsel. A release signed in the first hours, before the full extent of the injury is known, can extinguish rights forever. This is true whether the governing law is Kuwaiti or American.
Preserve what you can. If the family has any photographs, communications, or records from the incident or its aftermath, save them. In a US case, we would send a formal preservation letter within hours. In a foreign case, the family’s own records may be the only evidence outside sovereign custody.
Identify the employer’s nationality. This is the single most important fact for determining whether US law might apply. Was the worker employed by a US company? A US defense contractor? A US-flagged vessel operator? If the answer to any of those is yes — even if the platform is overseas — the case may be a US case, and that is when you call us.
Contact a lawyer in the right jurisdiction. If the employer is Kuwaiti and the incident is a military strike on Kuwaiti infrastructure, the call is to a Kuwaiti attorney. If the employer is American and the worker is a US citizen on a US-flagged vessel, the call is to us — 1-888-ATTY-911 — and the clock starts the moment you pick up the phone.
The Insurance Adjuster Playbook — What Happens When Coverage Is in Question
Even in a foreign incident, the patterns of delay and denial that insurance companies use are universal. If your situation has any US insurance nexus, here are the plays you should recognize — and the counters we deploy when the case is ours:
Play 1: The “act of war” exclusion. Many insurance policies — commercial general liability, property, even life — contain exclusions for acts of war, military action, and terrorism. An adjuster’s first move may be to deny coverage by invoking that exclusion, regardless of whether it actually applies. Counter: the specific policy language controls, and exclusions are construed narrowly. Whether a drone strike during an international military exchange qualifies as an “act of war” under a specific policy is a coverage question that requires the actual policy — not the adjuster’s summary. In a US case, we pull the policy and read it.
Play 2: The “independent contractor” dodge. If the worker was employed through a staffing agency or a subcontractor, the adjuster may argue the platform operator has no responsibility — “that worker wasn’t ours.” Counter: in US maritime law, the concept of “statutory employer” and the control-based agency tests pierce that wall. The company that controlled the work, set the schedule, and directed the crew is the company that answers for the injury — regardless of what the payroll stub says.
Play 3: The fast check with a release. If any insurance representative offers a quick settlement — a check arrives with a release printed on the back or attached — before the medical results are in, that is not generosity. That is procedure. The adjuster knows that the full extent of an offshore injury — a traumatic brain injury that shows up on a scan weeks later, a spinal injury that worsens over months, a psychological injury that surfaces as PTSD — may be worth multiples of what they are offering in the first 72 hours. The release extinguishes the right to come back for more. Counter: never accept a check or sign a release without counsel. The release is the one document that can turn a serious injury into no recovery at all.
Play 4: The recorded statement. Someone friendly will call to “check on the worker” and ask them to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording built to be quoted against them later. Counter: no recorded statement without counsel. Anything the worker says can and will be used to minimize the claim. “I’m feeling okay” on day two becomes “the injury wasn’t serious” at trial.
Case Value: What This Incident Is Worth — and What a US Offshore Case Can Be Worth
We owe you honesty on value. This incident, as a US legal matter, has a case value of zero. There is no US defendant to collect from, no US venue to file in, and no US statute that reaches it. Any US plaintiff firm that suggests otherwise is not being honest with you.
This is a foreign military incident with no US jurisdictional nexus. A US plaintiff personal-injury firm cannot prosecute this case. Any recovery for the injured worker would proceed under Kuwaiti law in Kuwaiti courts, likely through employer workers’ compensation or a state-claim process. There is no collectible US defendant, no US venue, and no applicable US tort framework.
That is the straight answer. But context matters — so here is what a US offshore platform injury case, when the jurisdictional nexus exists, can actually be worth. These figures are not a promise. They depend entirely on the facts of each case — the injury’s severity, the worker’s earning capacity, the employer’s fault, the coverage available. But they illustrate why the jurisdictional line we drew earlier matters so much:
The first year alone. The federal spinal cord injury registry puts the first-year cost of a high tetraplegia (neck-level paralysis) injury at approximately $1.4 million — and the lifetime care for a young adult at over $6 million. That figure covers medical and living expenses only; it deliberately excludes every lost paycheck.
The full tort measure. A Jones Act seaman can recover full tort damages — past and future lost earnings, full medical care, and pain and suffering — with no statutory cap. A serious offshore brain injury, spinal injury, amputation, or burn can carry a lifetime economic and human value in the millions to tens of millions, depending on the facts.
Maintenance and cure as immediate cash. From day one, a seaman’s employer owes daily living money and all medical bills, regardless of fault. That money flows while the case is being built — it is the fastest source of support for an injured offshore worker and their family.
These numbers are why the jurisdictional question — is this a US case or not — is not academic. It is the difference between zero and a recovery that can sustain a family for a lifetime.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the Kuwait Oil Company in a US court for the drone attack injury?
No. The Kuwait Oil Company is a state-owned enterprise of the Kuwaiti government, and under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign governments and their instrumentalities are generally immune from suit in US courts. A military drone strike on a sovereign nation’s infrastructure during an armed conflict does not fit the narrow exceptions to that immunity. The company is not subject to US personal jurisdiction, and no US court has venue over a claim arising from an attack on a Kuwaiti platform in Kuwaiti waters.
What is the political-question doctrine and why does it block this case?
The political-question doctrine is a principle of US constitutional law under which federal courts decline to decide matters that are constitutionally committed to the executive or legislative branches, or that are beyond judicial capacity. Active military conflicts between nations — including the exchange of strikes between the United States and Iran — fall squarely within this doctrine. A federal judge will not insert a jury into the middle of an ongoing international military conflict to determine who is responsible for a drone strike. That question is for diplomats, international tribunals, and the executive branch — not for a US courtroom.
I am a US citizen working overseas on an oil platform. Can I bring a US injury claim?
It depends on the specific facts. If you are a US citizen employed by a US company, working on a US-flagged vessel, or your work has a sufficient connection to US commerce, federal maritime law — including the Jones Act, the LHWCA, or general maritime law — may apply. The key question is whether a US nexus exists: the employer’s nationality, the vessel’s flag, the governing employment contract, and the location of the platform all matter. If any thread connects your work to the United States, call us. The analysis is specific to your situation and worth a free consultation.
How long do I have to file an offshore injury claim in the US?
If the Jones Act applies, the statute of limitations is three years from the date the cause of action accrued — generally the date of injury, though for latent or occupational injuries the clock may start at discovery. Under the LHWCA, a worker must give notice of injury within 30 days and file a claim within one year. DOHSA claims have their own deadlines. These clocks are unforgiving, and missing them can extinguish the claim entirely. If your situation has a US nexus, the day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
What if the drone attack was carried out by a state sponsor of terrorism?
There is a narrow exception to foreign sovereign immunity for state-sponsored terrorism under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, but it applies only to designated state sponsors of terrorism (currently Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria) and only under specific conditions — including that the claimant or victim was a US national at the time of the incident. Even where this exception applies, recovery is complex and often runs through a US-government-administered compensation fund rather than a traditional personal-injury lawsuit. This is a highly specialized area and does not change the fundamental analysis for a drone strike on a Kuwaiti platform operated by a Kuwaiti state company.
Can I file a workers’ compensation claim for this injury?
If the worker was employed by a US employer with US workers’ compensation coverage, a claim through that system may be possible regardless of where the injury occurred — but this depends entirely on the specific employer, the state whose comp law applies, and whether the employment relationship has a sufficient US connection. If the employer is Kuwaiti and the platform is in Kuwaiti waters, the worker’s compensation claim runs through Kuwait’s domestic labor law system, not the US system. A Kuwaiti-licensed attorney can guide that process.
What evidence should I try to preserve if my loved one was hurt on a foreign platform?
Preserve what is in the family’s possession: photographs, communications with the employer, medical records the family has received, any incident reports shared with the family, and a written timeline of events as you remember them. Do not attempt to secure evidence from the platform itself — that is in sovereign custody and is not accessible. If the situation has a US nexus, we send a formal preservation letter immediately to freeze logs, surveillance footage, employment records, and equipment data before they can be legally destroyed. If there is no US nexus, the family’s own records may be the only contemporaneous evidence outside sovereign control.
Should I accept a settlement offer from the employer’s insurance company?
Never accept a settlement, sign a release, or give a recorded statement without consulting a qualified attorney — whether the governing law is Kuwaiti or American. A quick settlement offer in the first days after an offshore injury is almost always worth a fraction of the claim’s true value, because the full extent of the injury has not yet been diagnosed. A release signed in the first 72 hours can permanently extinguish the right to seek further compensation. This is true in every jurisdiction, not just in the United States.
How do I find a qualified attorney for a foreign-platform injury?
If the incident is a military attack on foreign infrastructure with no US nexus, the appropriate referral is to a attorney licensed in the country where the incident occurred — in this case, a Kuwaiti-licensed attorney who handles employer-injury or state-compensation claims. If there is any US nexus — a US employer, a US-citizen worker, a US-flagged vessel — contact a US maritime personal-injury firm with experience in the Jones Act, LHWCA, and general maritime law. The consultation should be free, and the firm should tell you honestly within the first conversation whether the case is theirs or belongs in another country’s system.
Who We Are — and Why We Tell You the Truth When It Is Not Our Case
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are Legal Emergency Lawyers. We are based in Houston, Texas, and we take commercial-vehicle, catastrophic-injury, and wrongful-death cases — including offshore injury cases and refinery and industrial accident cases — where US law applies.
Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner. He has spent 27+ years in courtrooms, including federal court — admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he learned early that the truth is more useful than a comfortable story. He does not take a case the firm cannot win, and he will not let you believe a case exists where one does not. That is not kindness — it is the discipline of a trial lawyer who knows that false hope costs families time they cannot afford to lose.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney. He spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims from people exactly like the reader of this page. He sat in those rooms. He knows the plays. He knows how claims are valued, how reserves are set, how IME doctors are selected, and how surveillance is deployed. He now sits on your side of the table — and he conducts full client consultations in Spanish, without an interpreter, because the family that prays in Spanish deserves the same depth of advocacy as anyone else.
We have recovered over $50 million for injured clients across more than 24 years of practice. Those results were earned on cases the firm could take — cases with a US defendant, a US venue, and a US statute that reached the harm. This page is not a sales pitch. It is the honest answer to a hard question, from a firm that would rather lose a potential client than mislead one.
We don’t get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And if we are not the right fit — if your case belongs in another country’s legal system, as this one does — we will tell you, clearly, and point you toward the help that actually applies. That is what a free consultation should do. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 — 24/7, live staff, not an answering service.
Hablamos Español. Lupe conduce consultas completas en español, sin intérprete. Si su familia ora en español, usted merece la misma profundidad de defensa que cualquier otra persona.
The Bottom Line
The worker injured on that Kuwait Oil Company platform deserves every bit of help the law can provide. The help that exists for this incident lives in Kuwait’s legal system, not in ours. That is the truth, and we have given it to you straight.
But if you are reading this page because someone you love was hurt on an offshore platform — and the worker carries a US passport, or the employer is an American company, or the vessel flew a US flag — then the truth is different, and it is the truth we build cases on. Call us. The conversation is free. And the first thing we do, in every case we take, is tell you whether the case is real — because the only thing worse than hearing “this is not a US case” is hearing it from the wrong lawyer, months too late.
1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. 24/7.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.