Defendants in a multi-party action arising from a construction accident at a Port Arthur LNG terminal have petitioned the multi-district litigation panel to transfer to an MDL pre-trial court a number of personal injury actions filed in Harris and Jefferson Counties.
In re April 29, 2025 Construction Incident (No. 25-0590) arose from an accident involving the partial collapse of a modular climbing formwork allowing workers to perform elevated construction work. Three employees of Bechtel, the contractor that constructed the formwork, were killed and two injured. On the day of the accident, the first lawsuit was filed in Harris County, followed on the next day by one in Jefferson County. Numerous plaintiffs have intervened in those suits, and as of the date of the petition, there were more than a dozen named plaintiffs and intervenors and several lawsuits. Defendants in these actions include Bechtel, ConocoPhillips, Port Arthur LNG, and Sempra. Plaintiffs have asserted negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, and survival claims.
Defendants argue that the cases meet the requirements for transfer because they involve common questions of fact and transfer to an MDL pre-trial court will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the related cases. Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 13.3(1-2). Plaintiffs petitions all allege the same claims based on the same facts, and the liability issues involve the same facts, witnesses, and experts. And although the damages will differ for each plaintiff, the case satisfies the test of “one or more common issues of fact.” As the petition points out, within two days of the incident plaintiffs in Harris and Jefferson County sought TROs to preserve different items on different timelines. This early inconsistency indicates that as the cases proceed in different forums, competing discovery obligations will create a logistical nightmare and slow the efficient administration of justice. Transfer will also prevent witnesses from having to answer duplicative discovery requests and submit to multiple depositions. As you might expect, Plaintiffs, so far represented by six different firms, oppose the petition.
The MDL panel stayed further proceedings in the cases on July 11.
