Canas v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp.
418 S.W.3d 312
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Canas, as next friend of three minors, sued CenterPoint Energy Resources for wrongful death based on negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, gross negligence, and misrepresentation theories.
- CenterPoint moved for summary judgment arguing the Tariff’s liability limitation (filed-rate doctrine) barred negligence and strict-liability claims and that it had no duty to inspect customer premises or knowledge of dangerous conditions.
- Tariff provisions 14 (odorant and escaping gas warnings) and 17 (non-liability for post-delivery gas incidents) were cited; the point of delivery was defined as the meter-to-house piping boundary.
- Evidence showed the gas leak likely occurred in Betancourt’s housepiping after leaving the Point of Delivery and that odorant fade may have prevented detection.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on all claims; on appeal, the court split with multiple opinions regarding negligence, gross negligence, and misrepresentation claims.
- The court ultimately affirmed summary judgment for negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability, but reversed/remanded portions related to gross negligence and misrepresentation theories and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tariff’s liability limitation bar negligence and strict-liability claims? | Canas argues Tariff limits liability but seeks to overcome it via negligence per se and other theories. | CenterPoint contends the Tariff bars these claims under the filed-rate doctrine and statutory framework. | Tariff limits liability for negligence and strict liability claims. |
| Does the Tariff’s limitation extend to negligence per se and related duties arising from odorant fade? | Canas asserts regulations/odorant fade duties create a valid negligence-per-se basis that Tariff cannot bar. | CenterPoint argues Tariff may preempt these regulatory duties, barring such claims. | Tariff limitation is enforceable as to negligence and strict liability; negligence per se claim depends on conflict with federal/state law. |
| Is CenterPoint liable for gross negligence given the tariff limitations? | Gross-negligence claims should survive if not expressly barred by the tariff or if there is independent duty/warning failure. | Tariff bars recovery for gross negligence when grounded in pre-delivery or post-delivery negligence. | Partial reversal/remand: tariff bars some grounds, but gross-negligence claims may survive in part; remand for further proceedings. |
| Were the misrepresentation claims (intentional and negligent) properly addressed under summary judgment post amendment? | New misrepresentation theories were pleaded after summary judgment motion and should be considered. | The motion did not fully encompass new misrepresentation theories; merits depend on grounds. | Misrepresentation claims (intentional and negligent) reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Should the trial court’s summary judgment be affirmed as to negligence per se claims based on regulatory violations? | Negligence per se based on regulatory violations should be viable if duty and standard are met. | Tariff and lack of clear duty defeat negligence-per-se claims. | Negligence per se viable only if not precluded by tariff; analysis on conflict with federal/state law required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (tariff can limit liability for personal injuries; must be narrowly drawn and preserve remedy for gross negligence)
- Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Auchan USA, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1999) (predecessor on tariff limits; context for gross negligence not resolved)
- RT Realty, L.P. v. Tex. Util. Elec. Co., 181 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (cases addressing duty and negligence in utility contexts)
- Van Voris v. Team Chop Shop, LLC, 402 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013) (gross-negligence and pre/post-release considerations in similar contexts)
- Sydlik v. REIII, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (public-policy considerations on pre-accident waivers; relevance to gross negligence)