Bechak v. ATI Wah Chang, 4:15-cv-01692

Background

On December 17, 2011 an explosion at Heritage‑WTI during splitting/preparation of hazardous zirconium waste injured Plaintiff John Bechak and killed a co‑worker. Heritage‑WTI (the incinerator operator) is not a party.
ATI Precision Finishing, LLC was alleged to have generated the zirconium fines; ATI Wah Chang owned/controlled the waste and directed storage/treatment; Veolia ES Technical Solutions acted as a broker between ATI Wah Chang and Heritage‑WTI and had an existing 1999 disposal agreement with Heritage‑WTI.
Zirconium fines had earlier caused an explosion at a recycler, leaving ATI Precision unable to process its waste; barrels accumulated, were overpacked, stored outdoors, soaker‑hosed, and reconditioned before shipment to ATI Wah Chang and then to Heritage‑WTI.
Heritage‑WTI accepted nonconforming, overpacked material pursuant to the 1999 contract and split loads for incineration; one batch ignited in the pre‑chamber, and a later splitting operation resulted in the December 2011 explosion.
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment seeking third‑party beneficiary enforcement of the Heritage‑WTI/Veolia contract; defendants moved for summary judgment on negligence and punitive damages claims.
The court found genuine disputes of material fact about generation, classification, handling, and causation; denied plaintiff’s partial summary judgment and denied most defense summary judgment motions, but dismissed punitive damages as to ATI Precision Finishing, LLC.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bechak is an intended third‑party beneficiary of the Veolia–Heritage contract	Bechak argues the contract’s “Safety” clause shows intent to benefit employees like him, entitling him to enforce the contract for breach	Veolia contends Bechak didn’t plead breach properly and the contract language does not show intent to benefit third parties; any breach excused by Heritage‑WTI’s conduct	Denied plaintiff’s partial summary judgment: contract language shows services are for waste disposal and protection of employees involved in performance, but not an intent to make employees intended beneficiaries; no enforcement on summary judgment basis
Whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment on negligence claims	Bechak asserts defendants’ handling, identification, and communications about the waste were negligent and caused the explosion	Defendants argue compliance with regulations/standards and dispute causation and responsibilities; move for summary judgment	Denied: genuine issues of material fact remain about origin, classification, handling, causation, and responsibilities; summary judgment premature
Whether punitive damages are recoverable against ATI Precision Finishing	Plaintiff sought punitive damages against all defendants	ATI Precision argued no malice or recklessness to support punitive damages	Granted in part: punitive damages claim dismissed as to ATI Precision Finishing only
Whether punitive damages are recoverable against Veolia and ATI Wah Chang	Plaintiff contends evidence supports malice/recklessness by these defendants	Veolia and ATI Wah Chang deny requisite malice/recklessness and point to disputed facts	Denied (as to motions): court found factual disputes preclude summary disposition of punitive damages claims against these two defendants

Key Cases Cited

Estate of Smithers v. City of Flint, 602 F.3d 758 (6th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (genuine‑issue and materiality standard for summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (moving party’s burden and nonmoving party evidence obligation)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S.) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Hill v. Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 36 (Ohio) (third‑party beneficiary rule adopting Restatement §302)
Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp., 130 Ohio St.3d 196 (Ohio) (contract language controls intent to benefit third parties)
Grant Thornton v. Windsor House, Inc., 57 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio) (only parties or intended third‑party beneficiaries may enforce contract)
Norfolk & W. Co. v. United States, 641 F.2d 1201 (6th Cir.) (interpretation of third‑party beneficiary principles)