Refinery To Be Designated as Potentially Responsible Third Party in Wrongful Death Action
After two workers were killed in a 2012 Texas refinery explosion while attempting to restart a boiler, their estates filed suit against the workers’ employer (Defendant A), which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant B, which in turn was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant C. Approximately 20 months after filing suit, and 55 days before trial, the plaintiffs filed a notice of nonsuit of Defendant A (essentially dismissing Defendant A from the case). Shortly thereafter, Defendants B and C filed a motion for leave to designate Defendant A as a responsible third party, but plaintiffs objected given that the limitations period had run on their claims against Defendant A in the interim. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and denied the remaining defendants’ motion.
Defendants B and C appealed and on Tuesday, the Court of Appeals of Texas vacated the trial court’s order with instructions that the trial court allow those defendants to designate Defendant A as a responsible third party. Defendant B did not have a duty to disclose the refinery (Defendant A) as a potentially responsible third party in discovery disclosures when Defendant A was already a named party defendant at the time the disclosures were made.
The claims against Defendants B and C are that they committed the following acts of negligence and gross negligence: “(1) failed to install a boiler management system (BMS) on the boiler; (2) failed to install boiler management controls on all heating equipment as ordered by OSHA; (3) failed to adequately monitor the dangerous condition of the refinery and its boiler; (4) failed to alleviate hazardous conditions that could cause injury or death; (5) failed to repair hazardous conditions causing injury or death, including the boiler; and (6) failed to comply with OSHA directives to install a BMS system on the boiler.”
The original petition also included the following allegations against Defendant A that constituted intentional and willful acts: “(1) refused to install a BMS and one-inch gas feed pursuant to a third party engineering report; (2) did not document that the equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices; (3) did not ensure that written operating procedures addressed the operating limits of the process; (4) did not ensure the written operating procedures addressed the consequence of deviation from the safe upper and lower limits of the process; (5) did not provide refresher training at least every three (3) years to each employee involved in operating a process; (6) did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going mechanical integrity of process equipment; and (7) did not establish and implement written procedures to manage changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, procedures and changes to facilities that affect a covered process.”
