In re INEOS Americas, LLC

This case arises from the same March 22, 2023 tank-truck gas leak and explosion at INEOS Americas's Pasadena plant described in No. 26-0343. INEOS says the gas supplier, EnerChem Access, Ltd., contracted with third-party truckers to haul the flammable gas to the plant without vetting either the truckers or their equipment, and that the leak was caused by an unlicensed trucker with faulty equipment. The five remaining intervenors allege orthopedic, psychological, and emotional injuries.¹

This is an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus. INEOS designated EnerChem as a responsible third party under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004; the 113th District Court of Harris County (Judge Rabeea Collier) granted leave and then immediately struck the designation, accepting the intervenors' representation that the court had already decided EnerChem was not negligent.¹ INEOS petitioned the First Court of Appeals on August 29, 2025; that court stayed the trial court, requested a response, and on May 5, 2026 denied relief in a two-paragraph order without reasons and lifted the stay.² INEOS petitioned this Court on May 27, 2026; the real parties in interest responded July 6, and INEOS replied July 27 (Docket). On October 23, 2026 the Court set the case for oral argument on March 4, 2027 in San Antonio, at the same time as No. 26-0343 (Docket).

INEOS presents two issues: (I) whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking the designation mere seconds after granting leave for it and without giving INEOS notice of the motion to strike or an opportunity to respond in writing; and (II) whether the court abused its discretion by striking a designation on the affirmative defense of res judicata when (A) section 33.004 allows a motion to strike only under the no-evidence summary-judgment standard and (B) the elements of res judicata were unmet in any event.¹

Relator (INEOS Americas, LLC): The decision was procedurally wrong because INEOS had no meaningful chance to respond to a late-breaking res judicata argument, and substantively wrong because res judicata is an affirmative defense, not a ground for striking a designation under section 33.004. Without this Court's review INEOS "will lose its substantive, statutory right to apportion responsibility to a critical third party".¹

Real Parties in Interest (intervenors): The trial court had already ruled, on motions for summary judgment and EnerChem's own motion to strike, that there was no evidence raising a fact issue on EnerChem's negligence toward the intervenors or INEOS, a ruling that followed substantial motion practice by EnerChem and INEOS. Based on that prior ruling the court properly struck the designation, and mandamus should be denied.²

INEOS argues that striking a designation without an opportunity to respond, on an unproven affirmative defense, is an abuse of discretion that warrants mandamus review because the loss of the statutory right to apportion responsibility cannot be remedied on appeal.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 (26-0343)
  Cites the same authorities, including In re E. Tex. Med. Ctr. Athens (cited 6 times here and 9 there); In re El Apple (cited 12 times here and 3 there); Gregory v. Chohan (cited 4 times here and 4 there)