Background
These consolidated cases arise from a May 2022 propane flash fire and explosion at a Cotton Valley, Louisiana, bulk propane storage and transportation facility owned by XTO Energy Inc. and leased and operated by Aeropres Corporation. Aeropres employees George Hardaway, Chancey Hawk, and Daniel Payne were transferring liquid propane into an Aeropres tanker when a hose connection failed, releasing propane that vaporized and ignited. All three workers were severely burned, and Hawk later died.
The injured workers and Hawk’s family sued Aeropres, and later added XTO. They alleged, among other theories, that XTO committed an intentional tort because an allegedly defective loading rack allowed leaked gas to accumulate rather than dissipate. XTO moved for partial summary judgment on the intentional-tort claim. The trial court denied that motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Circuit reversed. It granted XTO’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all plaintiffs’ intentional-tort claims against XTO.
The court did not resolve the factual merits of the alleged facility defect. Instead, it relied on plaintiffs’ acknowledgment at oral argument that they did not wish to pursue intentional-tort claims against XTO. Plaintiffs had opposed XTO’s motion only to preserve their claims against Aeropres.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s express disclaimer of an intentional-tort claim can support summary judgment dismissing that claim.
- The dismissal applies to intentional-tort claims against XTO Energy Inc., not to claims against Aeropres.
- The dismissal was with prejudice, and appellate costs were assessed to plaintiffs.
Why It Matters
The ruling narrows this workplace-injury litigation by removing XTO from the intentional-tort theory while leaving the underlying consolidated actions otherwise intact. It also illustrates that a party cannot maintain opposition to summary judgment on a claim it has affirmatively stated it does not intend to pursue.