In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

Background

This case is part of a consolidated multidistrict litigation concerning groundwater contamination allegedly caused by releases of gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleged that defendants, including gasoline manufacturers, distributors, and sellers, were liable for actual or threatened contamination of Pennsylvania drinking water.

The BP Defendants at issue were Atlantic Richfield Company, BP Products North America Inc., BP America, Inc., BP Amoco Chemical Company, now known as INEOS US Chemicals Company, and BP Corporation North America, Inc. They sought summary judgment, a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the result, on certain claims or parts of claims.

BP Amoco Chemical Company manufactured MTBE at a chemical plant in Whiting, Indiana, during some of the relevant years. Gasoline from a BP Products refinery in Whiting was sent to terminals in Ohio. The Commonwealth showed that gasoline was transported from Ohio into Pennsylvania, but it did not identify evidence showing that gasoline from the Whiting refinery, or gasoline containing MTBE made by BP Amoco Chemical Company, reached Pennsylvania.

Court’s Analysis

Under Pennsylvania negligence law, the Commonwealth had to prove a duty, a breach, and a causal connection between the breach and its damages. In this products-liability case, it also had to establish that the injury was caused by a particular manufacturer’s or supplier’s product.

As to BP Amoco Chemical Company, the court held that the evidence did not create a genuine factual dispute about whether MTBE it manufactured entered Pennsylvania and caused the alleged contamination. The Commonwealth relied on evidence that BP Amoco Chemical Company made MTBE, that gasoline from the Whiting refinery went to Ohio, and that gasoline from Ohio sometimes went to Pennsylvania. The court concluded that connecting those facts required speculation because the Commonwealth had no evidence that the particular gasoline containing BP Amoco Chemical Company’s MTBE reached Pennsylvania. The defendants’ earlier statement that this was “possible” was insufficient to meet the Commonwealth’s burden of proof.

As to Atlantic Richfield, the court held that the Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence that MTBE releases at Focus Sites 35 and 44 occurred while Atlantic Richfield was supplying those sites. For Focus Site 35, Moreau’s materials indicated only that intermittent releases occurred before MTBE was discovered in 1996, possibly as far back as 1980. For Focus Site 44, the site-specific report did not describe a release before 1986. The court also found that Moreau’s conclusions were inadequately explained because the materials did not identify the methodology, supporting facts, or reasoning used to date the releases.

The court therefore concluded that the Commonwealth had not raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning Atlantic Richfield’s liability at Focus Sites 35 and 44. Because the court could resolve the motion without considering a later declaration by James Simnick stating that BP Amoco Chemical Company’s MTBE never reached Pennsylvania, it did not decide whether that declaration was admissible or timely.

Disposition

The court granted the BP Defendants’ March 21, 2025 motion for partial summary judgment. The opinion states that BP Products also sought summary judgment concerning Department of Environmental Protection oversight costs at five Focus Sites, but the Commonwealth responded that it was not seeking those costs. The opinion’s conclusion states only that the BP Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted.