STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2021 CA 0538
DERRICK DAIGREPONT
VERSUS
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION,
EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY, TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP,
LLC, TURNER INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE, LLC, & FLOWSERVE,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NUMBER 2021 CA 0539
RODNEY WANNER
VERSUS
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXONMOBIL GLOBAL SERVICES,
COMPANY, EXXONMOBILE CHEMICAL COMPANY, EXXONMOBIL
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING COMPANY, BROCK INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES, LLC, TOTAL SAFETY U. S., INC., UNITED RENTALS
NORTH AMERICA), INC., FLOWSERVE US INC., & JOHATHON
ZACHARY
Judgment Rendered: DEC 3 0 2021
C µ Appealed from
the Nineteenth Judicial District
Court In and for the Parish of East Baton
Rouge State of
Louisiana Docket Number C657026 c/w C658372, Section
27 Honorable Trudy White, Judge
Presiding Darrel J. Papillion Counsel for Plaintiff/
Appellant, Renee C. LA Derrick
Crasto Jennifer Wise
Moroux Baton Rouge,
LA Jere Jay
Bice Lake Charles,
J. Kyle Findley Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Kala Flittner Sellers Rodney Wanner
Houston, TX
A.M. " Tony" Clayton
Michael P. Fruge
Richard J. Ward, III
Port Allen, LA
Thomas M. Flanagan
Sean P. Brady
Anders F. Holmgren
New Orleans, LA
Michael P. Bienvenu Counsel for Defendant/Appellee,
Brent E. Kinchen Flowserve ITS, Inc.
Valerie Briggs Bargas
Gregory P. Aycock
Baton Rouge, LA
Arthur H. Leith Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,
C. Keiffer Petree Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Sarah E. McMillan
New Orleans, LA
Thomas W. Darling Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,
Laura W. Christensen Setpoint Integrated Solutions, Inc.
Baton Rouge, LA
Charles M. Jarrell Counsel for Intervenor/Appellee,
Opelousas, LA Indemnity Insurance Company of
North America
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.
2
WHIPPLE, C.J.
In this matter arising from a November 22, 2016 explosion and fire at the
Exxon Mobil Corporation ( Exxon) refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (the Baton
Rouge Refinery), plaintiff, Rodney Wanner, appeals the trial court' s judgment
granting summary judgment in favor of defendant manufacturer, Flowserve US,
Inc. ( Flowserve) and dismissing all of Wanner' s claims against Flowserve with
prejudice.
On the date of the incident, Wanner was working for Turner Industries LLC,
in the Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Unit ( Alky Unit) at the Baton Rouge Refinery.
Wanner was working atop scaffolding that was erected directly above various
valves in the unit, including the valve at issue in this case. Jonathon Zachary, an
employee of Exxon and the Alky Unit operator, was performing work on a plug
valve that was connected to a pressurized isobutane line. As pertinent to this
lawsuit, Zachary was unable to operate the valve using the handwheel installed on
top of the valve. Thus, although the isobutane line was still in use and the valve
was pressurized, Zachary began to remove the valve' s gearbox in order to gain
access to the valve stem, which he intended to open with a pipe wrench. Four
vertical bolts secured the L-shaped gearbox bracket to the plug; these four bolts
were also used to secure the bonnet/top cap of the valve, which is a pressure -
containing component of the valve. When Zachary removed the valve' s gearbox,
because the line was still pressurized, isobutane escaped the line via the now
opened plug valve and entered into the atmosphere. The isobutane reached an
ignition source, believed to be a welding machine located north of the valve,
causing an explosion and fire that injured several people in the area.
On June 9, 2017, Wanner filed a petition for damages against various
defendants, including Flowserve, alleging that he was severely injured in the
explosion and forced to undergo " extensive medical treatment." Wanner alleged
C
that Flowserve manufactured the valve,' and that, among other things, it was
unreasonably dangerous under the Louisiana Products Liability Act. On Wanner' s
motion, this action was consolidated with another action stemming from the same
events filed by Derrick Daigrepont, who was also injured in the explosion.
On August 29, 2019, Flowserve filed a motion for summary judgment and/or
motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss all of Daigrepont' s and
Warner' s claims against it. Flowserve argued that summary judgment in its favor
was proper because the LPLA is the exclusive theory of recovery available to
Daigrepont and Wanner in their claims against Flowserve as the manufacturer of
the valve at issue in this case, and Daigrepont and Wanner would be unable to
meet their burden of proof under the LPLA at trial. Daigrepont and Wanner jointly
opposed Flowserve' s motion, arguing that the LPLA issues in this case are fact
issues that are not appropriate for summary judgment because there is " ample
evidence" from which a jury could conclude that "( 1) Flowserve reasonably
expected an operator like Zachary to use [ the] valve in this fashion, ( 2) Flowserve
failed to adequately warn of grave dangers of which it was acutely aware, and ( 3)
Flowserve' s valve was unreasonably dangerous in design."
The matter proceeded to a hearing on October 2, 2019, and the trial court
orally granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that although Flowserve
manufactured the valve, it was " in the custody, care, and control of Exxon... [ who
was] at all pertinent times ... a sophisticated user of the product." On October 18,
2019, the trial court signed two separate judgments in accordance with its oral
ruling, granting summary judgment in favor of Flowserve and dismissing all of
Daigrepont' s and Wanner' s claims against Flowserve with prejudice. Wanner then
filed the instant appeal, contending that the trial court erred because "[ t] here is
The valve was manufactured by Flowserve' s predecessor in interest, the Duriron
Company, Inc. For purposes of this opinion, all references will be to Flowserve.
El
evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude in Mr. Wanner' s favor on
each of his claims." 2
For the reasons set forth in the companion case, Daigrepont v Exxon Mobil
Corporation, 2021- 0534 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 12/ 29/21, So. 3d , the October
18, 2019 judgment of the trial court, granting summary judgment in favor of
Flowserve US, Inc. and dismissing Rodney Wanner' s claims against Flowserve
US, Inc., with prejudice, is hereby reversed. This matter is remanded for further
proceedings. Costs of this appeal are assessed against defendant/appellee,
Flowserve US, Inc.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Daigrepont also filed a separate appeal from the judgment dismissing his claims against
Flowserve with prejudice which was docketed under Docket Number 2021 CA 0534 c/ w 2021
CA 0535. That appeal will be handled in a separate opinion.
5