Spanish
On Jan. 8, 2025, The 14th Appellate Court of Texas slashed $8 million from a $27 million verdict involving Exxon Mobile, and demanded a retrial.
This decision in Exxon Mobile v. Brown et al signifies a step away from what has been an increasing trend in “nuclear verdicts.” Nuclear verdicts, like those in Werner v. Blake and Cecilia Cruz et al. v Allied Aviation Fueling Company of Houston and Reginal Willis, are massive – Werner resulted in a $100 million verdict, while Cruz resulted in a $352 million verdict. And while Texas has steadily increased in the amount of nuclear verdict cases since 2000, seeing more than 200 verdicts totaling $45 billion between 2009 and 2023, the Lone Star State has also taken steps to curb nuclear verdicts. One such step occurred in 2021, with the passage of HB 19, a tort reform against transportation verdicts and so-called “reptile theory” court strategy.
However, Brown shows something different: a stricter set of requirements for determining damages.
Background of Exxon Mobile v Brown
Exxon Mobile v Brown dates back to 2019, with an explosion at the Exxon Mobile Olefin Plant in Baytown, Texas. In total, six workers filed tort for the explosion – one plaintiff recovered nothing, while two others were severed out because of worker’s compensation benefits. The three remaining plaintiffs were awarded sizable amounts: Tamara Brown, Demarcus Friels, and Brayan Roque. None of the plaintiffs were injured directly by the explosion: rather, the workers claim injury as a result of the explosion. Roque ran from the explosion and bumped his shoulder hard; Friels, who is six foot none and three hundred and sixty pounds, jumped more than five feet from an excavator after seeing the fireball; Brown lost her grip during a second explosion and fell on top of a coworker.
The jury awarded millions in non-economic damages, included past and future mental anguish, past and future pain, disfigurement, and loss of potential earning capacity.
Excessive Awards and Insufficient Evidence
The 14th Appellate Court has argued that at least one award to each of the three plaintiffs is excessive. In the remanding opinion, the court had the following to say about Roque’s past and future mental anguish damages:
“Did the jury award equal amounts for Roque’s past and future damages because it believed that the severity of his mental anguish would lessen over time but still persist over a much longer period? Or did the jury simply pick a number and put it in both of the blanks?”
The court has argued that the damages suffered in Roque’s case were less than that of most serious car crashes, yet far beyond their typical payout: “Roque’s injuries are comparable to those seen in many car wreck cases, where plaintiffs frequently suffer herniated discs and other sorts of trauma to the spine” … “Yet the damages for mental anguish in those car wreck cases are usually much smaller.” For more information about the types of damages in personal injury cases, read our article here.
Friels was rejected future mental anguish damages due to a lack of supporting evidence, and while Brown and Roque were found to have “insufficient factual evidence,” the court remanded the question, rather than rejecting it outright. According to the court, the plaintiffs described a generalized series of “mild disruptions” to daily life. Similarly, Roque and Brown were rejected for physical impairment damages due to “legally insufficient” evidence; both parties described required modifications to their daily living and successfully proved that their injuries caused regular or daily pain, but the courts pointed out that both parties have already received compensation for “pain.” Physical impairment damages must therefore be prescribed only in cases where the plaintiff’s injuries are “substantial and extremely disabling”
The courts did support the majority of claims for past and future medical expenses, as well as damages for disfigurement and lost earning capacity. Interestingly, the court agreed with Roque’s claims for medical damages and lost earning capacity, despite him returning to work shortly after the accident and not attending his appointments. According to the opinion, “…Roque had returned to work by the time of trial and, for months or years, he had not visited any of his medical or rehabilitation professionals.” And yet opined: “These criticisms are misdirected insofar as they challenge weight of the evidence, which has no bearing in a legal sufficiency analysis,” citing Finley v. P.G (2014).
Back to Square One
With the exception of claims refused, the 14th Appellate Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial. All damages that the court found acceptable, such as Roque and Brown’s current and future medical expenses, as well as disfigurement and mental anguish, will be reopened at a new trial, potentially with a new judge and jury. Certain claims have been rendered void, however, including:
- Roque’s $2 million for past physical impairment and $1 million for future physical impairment
- Friel’s $1.5 million for future mental anguish
- Brown’s $1.5 million for past physical impairment and $2 million in future physical impairment
What Happens Now?
The plaintiffs, Roque, Friel and Brown, will have the option to either appeal the decision, taking the appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, or accepting the remanded trial. It is highly likely that the new trial will result in a reduced verdict from the current $19 million remaining in damages, despite the fact that many of the damages were largely punitive in nature. However, the compensation the plaintiffs receive will come down to the ability of their counsel, the judge and the new jury.
The appeal decision in Exxon Mobile v Brown et al. is a warning sign to what the courts are increasingly beginning to see as an overreach in discretionary damages. This decision chills the air for non-economic verdicts, and may unfortunately lower the floor for certain refinery-related settlements. One of the deciding factors in settlement negotiations is unfortunately how much of a threat cases are to take to trial – if Texas signals that these “nuclear verdicts” are less possible, more companies will fight harder to give less. And that is bad for everyone.
Hire a Refinery Accident Lawyer in Houston
The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian have served Houston for over 21 years, providing legal representation to those injured as a result of refinery explosions and fires. Hilda Sibrian has an extensive medical background, which she uses to fight for your deserved compensation for medical expenses.
Hilda Sibrian serves the Houston metropolitan area, including Sugar Land, Missouri City, La Porte, Beaumont, Pasadena, The Woodlands, The Heights, Bellaire, Kingwood, Baytown and of course Houston proper. Call our office today at 713-714-1414or fill out our online contact form for a free consultation.
