Background
These consolidated cases arise from a May 2022 propane flash fire and explosion at a bulk-storage and transportation facility in Cotton Valley, Louisiana. XTO Energy Inc. owned the facility, which Aeropres Corporation leased and operated. While Aeropres employees George Hardaway, Chancey Hawk, and Daniel Payne were transferring liquid propane into a tanker truck, a leaking hose connection came loose, releasing propane that vaporized and ignited. All three workers were severely burned, and Hawk later died from his injuries.
The workers and their families sued Aeropres, and later added XTO. They alleged, among other claims, that XTO was strictly liable as owner of the facility and supplier of the propane. XTO sought partial summary judgment dismissing only the strict-liability claims against it. The trial court denied that motion, and XTO sought supervisory review.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Second Circuit granted XTO’s writ application, reversed the denial of partial summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ strict-liability claims against XTO.
The court did so because plaintiffs stated at oral argument that they no longer wished to pursue strict-liability claims against XTO. Plaintiffs had opposed XTO’s motion to preserve their claims against Aeropres, but the court’s ruling addressed only XTO’s motion and the strict-liability claims asserted against XTO.
Key Takeaways
- Strict-liability claims against XTO were dismissed with prejudice.
- The ruling followed plaintiffs’ express abandonment of those claims against XTO.
- The decision did not resolve plaintiffs’ claims against Aeropres.
Why It Matters
The decision is a narrow procedural win for XTO: it removes one theory of liability against the facility owner without deciding the merits of the remaining claims arising from the propane explosion.
It also underscores that an appellate court may reverse a denial of summary judgment when the party asserting the challenged claim expressly abandons it.