Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp.
2012 La. LEXIS 499
| La. | 2012Background
- June 18–19, 2006, a severe rainstorm caused CITGO Lake Charles refinery waste system spill, overflowing storage tanks and containment dikes.
- The system’s two 10-million-gallon tanks with skimmers and a junction box under an unfinished earth floor contributed to the spill and overflow path.
- Over 21 million gallons of waste, including 17 million gallons of contaminated wastewater and 4.2 million gallons of slop oil, escaped, with over 1 million gallons reaching the Calcasieu River.
- Fourteen Ron Williams Construction employees working at CRC sued CITGO and R&R Construction for exposures to noxious gases; trial court found CITGO negligent and awarded compensatory damages plus fear-of-future-injury awards and punitive damages under Texas/Oklahoma law.
- Appellate court affirmed, but CITGO sought review challenging choice-of-law on punitive damages, arguing Louisiana law should apply and that due process and burden-of-proof arguments also arose.
- The Supreme Court ultimately held Louisiana conflict-of-laws does not authorize Texas or Oklahoma punitive damages; fear-of-future-injury damages were upheld as compensable; summary-judgment fault allocation found CITGO failed to prove third-party fault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs punitive damages? | CITGO domicile/place of injury dictate Texas/Oklahoma law. | Louisiana conflicts rules control; punitive damages not available under Louisiana law. | Louisiana law does not authorize Texas or Oklahoma punitive damages. |
| Does due process bar punitive damages here? | Punitive damages permissible under multistate choice when authorized by domicile and conduct state. | If no punitive damages under applicable law, due process arguments moot. | Issue moot; punitive damages not authorized. |
| Does the burden of proof shift in chemical exposure causation? | Medical and expert testimony suffice to prove causation by preponderance, not requiring air-monitoring data. | Causation requires scientific exposure data to meet standard. | Supersedes to allow causation proof through medical/experiential evidence; air data not required. |
| Did courts properly award fear of future injury damages? | Bonnette is distinguishable; cancer fear damages were warranted where exposure occurred with physical injury. | Fear damages require more than speculative or remote possibility. | Fear damages upheld as compensable. |
| Was fault allocation complete against all responsible parties? | Summary judgment should allocate fault to all responsible entities; CITGO had sole fault proof. | Third parties may share fault; CITGO bears primary responsibility. | Summary judgment on third-party fault affirmed; CITGO not shown to share fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1979) (two-step manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (clear-error review of trial court facts)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La.2011) (choice-of-law factors under Article 3542)
- McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hospital, 65 So.3d 1218 (La.2011) (harmonization vs. specific statute in conflict of laws)
- Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So.3d 1 (La.2011) (no express weighing of every statutory factor required)
- Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 837 So.2d 1219 (La.2003) (fear of future injury; limits under mental-anguish rule)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. 1998) (corporate liability for punitive damages via gross negligence by officers)