in Re CVR Energy, Inc., CVR Partners, LP, CVR Refining, LP, Gary-Williams Energy Company, LLC
01-15-00877-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 15, 2015Background
- Underlying suit: wrongful-death claims filed after a 2012 boiler explosion at Wynnewood Refinery killed Russell Mann and Billy Smith; plaintiffs originally sued Wynnewood Refining Co., LLC and the CVR defendants.
- Plaintiffs nonsuited Wynnewood on April 22, 2015; CVR defendants then moved to designate Wynnewood as a statutory responsible third party under Texas law (motion filed May 18, 2015).
- Trial was set for October 20, 2015; the trial court denied CVR’s motion for leave on October 12, 2015, eight days before trial.
- CVR filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals and an emergency motion asking the appellate court to stay the underlying trial pending resolution of mandamus, arguing the jury must be allowed to consider Wynnewood’s negligence.
- CVR also filed an emergency motion in the trial court to reconsider or stay; the trial court later issued an order vacating its October 12 denial, granted leave to designate Wynnewood as a responsible third party, and removed the case from the October 20 trial docket pending resolution of the mandamus proceedings.
- Additional procedural concern: plaintiffs’ wrongful-death beneficiaries allegedly are not all joined, creating a separate impediment to proceeding with trial at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should grant CVR leave to designate Wynnewood as a responsible third party | Plaintiffs opposed the designation and objected to the motion for leave | CVR argued Wynnewood controlled the premises and employed decedents, so the jury must be allowed to assess Wynnewood’s negligence | Trial court initially denied leave, then on reconsideration vacated the denial and granted leave to designate Wynnewood as a responsible third party |
| Whether the underlying trial should be stayed pending resolution of the mandamus petition | Plaintiffs opposed a stay and wanted trial to proceed | CVR sought an emergency stay to prevent irreversible error by trying the case without Wynnewood on the verdict form and to allow appellate review | Trial court granted a stay (removed case from Oct. 20 docket) and ordered the trial rescheduled after mandamus resolution |
| Whether trying the case without Wynnewood would cause irreparable or reversible error | Plaintiffs argued trial should proceed despite procedural posture | CVR argued denial of leave would improperly preclude jury consideration of a responsible third party and require mandamus relief; also cited joinder issues of wrongful-death beneficiaries | Court’s reconsideration and stay reflect acceptance of CVR’s contention that proceeding immediately would be improper; appellate mandamus remains pending |
| Whether wrongful-death claims can proceed piecemeal without all statutory beneficiaries joined | Plaintiffs sought to pursue the wrongful-death claims as filed | CVR argued Texas wrongful-death statute requires all statutory beneficiaries be represented in single action | Court noted this as an additional impediment to immediate trial (cited governing wrongful-death authorities) |
Key Cases Cited
- Avila v. St. Luke's Lutheran Hosp., 948 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (discussing requirement that all statutory wrongful-death beneficiaries be joined to obtain an enforceable judgment)
- Tex. Health Enters., Inc. v. Geisler, 9 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (same legal point regarding wrongful-death beneficiary joinder requirement)
- In re Arthur Andersen LLP, 121 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (orig. proceeding) (recognizes that denial of leave to designate a responsible third party can be corrected by mandamus when the trial would otherwise proceed under legal error)