Coffeyville Explosion Case
Continued From Page 3
Farmland sent Cust-O-Fab the wrong gasket, which Cust-O-Fab ultimately used when it finished re-bolting the channel cover.
Before it was returned to Farmland, the unit was pressure tested by Cust-O-Fabto 6600 psi. Although there was initially a leak at the location of the stud where the split washer was used to tighten the nut, the other nuts were tightened and the vessel did eventually pass the pressure test.
After passing the pressure test, the vessel was Code Stamped by Cust-O-Fab onJuly 20, 2001, and shipped to Farmland to be placed back into service at the Coffeyville plant. On the evening of Saturday, |
July 28, 2001, the gasket failed at the location where Cust-O-Fab’s employees had galled the nut onto the stud and used the split washer as a spacer during the bolt-up of the unit only eight days earlier.
A lawsuit was brought on behalf of Rickand Teresa Hunt against Cust-O-Fab, Inc. and others in state court in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The case presented several challenges. First, Cust-O-Fab performeda litigation test where it removed a bolt from an exemplar vessel and pressurized it to 6600 psi. The unit held with no leaks. Cust-O-Fab used the test to argue that one “bad bolt” could not fail the massive vessel. Second, Farmland supplied the wrong gasket, and our engi-neering and ASME code expert agreed this gasket contributed to the failure.Third, discovery revealed that Farmland’s mechanics had performed additional bolt-up work on the unit after it was returned from Cust-O-Fab and had, therefore, altered the unit from its |
repaired condition. Fourth, Cust-O-Fab’s engineers and independent inspectors testified the vessel failed due to the same Farmland process problems that contaminated the vessel in the firstplace. Although we argued for the application of Oklahoma law, if Kansas law applied it would have permitted Cust-O-Fab to compare Farmland’s fault attrial. Finally, the worker’s compensation carrier claimed a substantial lien and also claimed a credit against future benefits for the amount of any settlement or judgment. Rick and Theresa’s recovery would have been virtually eliminated if they were made to repay the lien and lose future benefits.
After a lengthy pre-suit investigation and a year of litigation, the case was settled for Cust-O-Fab’s policy limits of $1,000,000. Unfortunately, this amount is far less than our clients’ actual damages, which were found to exceed $5,000,000 at an apportionment hearing. Importantly, after hearing ourclients’ testimony and the expert evidence we presented, the Court apportioned the settlement to Rick’s lost future wages and Teresa’s consortium claims, which were non-duplicative of worker’s compensation benefits under Kansas law. As a result, Rick Hunt will continue to receive his future worker’s compensation benefits and does not have to repay the worker’s compensation lien.
Rick and Teresa’s case was handled by John Parisi and Scott Nutter of our firm along with local counsel, James Frasier of Tulsa, Oklahoma. |
