In re INEOS Americas, LLC

On March 22, 2023, a tank-truck driver for RLC Trucking, Shaquille Landor, was unloading liquefied petroleum gas at INEOS Americas's cumene plant in Pasadena when the fittings between his truck and the plant's loading arm failed and the leaking gas ignited, causing several explosions.¹ INEOS says Landor was not certified to haul or unload LPG in Texas and that the truck's fittings were a lighter gauge than federal regulations require.² It also says a Railroad Commission inspector, Edwin Cook, inspected the truck and driver "a couple hours" before the incident, missed both problems, and released them, and that Commission rules would have kept them off the road had he caught either one.³ Forty-three plaintiffs and intervenors sued INEOS, the gas supplier Enerchem Access, and RLC; all but five intervenors settled.⁴ The remaining plaintiffs allege orthopedic, psychological, and emotional injuries.⁵

This is an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus. INEOS designated the Railroad Commission as a responsible third party under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004; on August 7, 2025 the 113th District Court of Harris County (Judge Rabeea Collier) struck the designation on the plaintiffs' motion.¹ The First Court of Appeals stayed the trial court, then denied mandamus in a two-paragraph order without reasons on December 31, 2025, and denied rehearing on February 12, 2026.² INEOS petitioned this Court on April 13, 2026; the real parties in interest responded June 24, and INEOS replied July 14 (Docket). On October 23, 2026 the Court set the case for oral argument on March 4, 2027 in San Antonio, the same day and time as In re INEOS Americas, LLC, No. 26-0542 (Docket).

INEOS presents one issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking the Commission as a responsible third party after the Commission admitted it owed and breached statutory and regulatory duties to inspect a tank truck and qualify its driver, resulting in a same-day gas leak traceable both to a defect in the truck and the negligence of its driver.¹ The real parties in interest restate it as whether INEOS met its burden to produce a scintilla of evidence that the Commission owed a duty, breached it, and proximately caused the incident or their damages.²

Relator (INEOS Americas, LLC): A defendant may designate a responsible third party even if the third party is immune, and a motion to strike must be denied if the defendant produces enough evidence to raise a fact issue on responsibility, a no-evidence standard.¹ The Commission undertook to inspect LPG tank trucks and check drivers' certifications for public safety, which created a duty to use reasonable care in doing so, and its own inspector's testimony supplies evidence of breach.² A trial court's error in striking a designation also leaves no adequate appellate remedy.³

Real Parties in Interest (plaintiffs): There is no evidence the Commission owed or breached a duty to them: the scope of a regulator's duty when it inspects a third party's tanker is a question of law, and expert testimony is required on the standard of care and any breach, but INEOS designated no qualified expert.⁴ Even if there were a duty and breach, there is no evidence of proximate cause under Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake: the Commission had no one on site, INEOS controlled access to its plant and admitted the truck, and at most an inspection furnished a condition that made the injuries possible. They add that INEOS has an adequate remedy because RLC, the trucker, remains a defendant.⁵

INEOS says mandamus is warranted because it met the no-evidence burden under section 33.004 and, without correction, will be "irretrievably prejudiced" in apportioning responsibility; it cites this Court's 2025 decision granting mandamus where a trial court wrongly struck a designation.¹

None

Cases on this site that cite the same authorities as this one. This is a list found by comparing citations, not a recommendation; read the opinions before relying on any of them.

• In re INEOS Americas, LLC (26-0542)
  Cites the same authorities, including In re E. Tex. Med. Ctr. Athens (cited 9 times here and 6 there); In re El Apple (cited 3 times here and 12 there); Gregory v. Chohan (cited 4 times here and 4 there)