In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

Background

This case is part of a multidistrict litigation concerning groundwater contamination caused by releases of gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleges that dozens of gasoline manufacturers, distributors, and sellers are liable for actual or threatened contamination of Pennsylvania drinking water. Its remaining claim is negligence, including a theory that the defendants failed to provide warnings or special instructions that could have prevented or reduced MTBE contamination.

The moving defendants—Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Texaco Inc., TRMI-H LLC, and other defendants identified in the motion—sought partial summary judgment on the negligent failure-to-warn theory. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the result. The defendants argued that Pennsylvania had no evidence identifying what warnings should have been given or connecting the absence of warnings to the alleged injuries. They also argued that a defendant could not have a duty to warn itself or its own employees about MTBE dangers at sites it owned or operated.

Evidence About Warnings and Causation

Pennsylvania relied principally on the opinions of Marcel Moreau, an expert on underground petroleum storage systems. Moreau proposed warnings and information for storage-system owners, engineers, fuel-delivery drivers, and personnel operating or servicing underground storage systems. His proposals included recommended practices, operating manuals, maintenance procedures, printed materials, training, education, and information about preventing, detecting, containing, and responding to MTBE releases.

Moreau testified that these measures would not have eliminated all releases, but would have reduced their number and size. He also stated that a generic instruction such as “Don’t Spill” would have been inadequate; his proposed approach involved more extensive information and training. Pennsylvania also offered internal industry documents discussing MTBE’s greater groundwater risks, spill-prevention measures, personnel training, and communications to gasoline handlers and users.

General Failure-to-Warn Theory

The court held that Pennsylvania had raised a triable issue of fact on causation. Moreau’s opinions could support an inference that better warnings or instructions would have reduced MTBE releases and, in turn, groundwater contamination. The court rejected the argument that Pennsylvania needed to present the exact wording of a particular warning before reaching a jury. It also held that Moreau’s acknowledgment that warnings would not have prevented every release did not defeat the claim because Pennsylvania could attempt to prove that the alleged failure to warn was a substantial factor, even if not the only cause, of the contamination.

The court further held that Pennsylvania law did not foreclose a failure-to-warn theory merely because the proposed information included training or education. Moreau proposed communications in several forms, including printed materials, recommended practices, and detailed instructions. The court found no persuasive Pennsylvania authority establishing a strict distinction that would permit liability for failing to issue a formal warning but not for failing to provide needed educational information about a dangerous product.

Claims Involving Defendants’ Own Sites

The court granted the defendants’ alternative argument. The motion identified 32 Focus Sites that Pennsylvania alleged at least one defendant owned or operated during relevant periods. Pennsylvania identified no authority showing that Pennsylvania law imposes a supplier’s duty to warn a defendant itself or its own employees or agents. Pennsylvania also did not dispute, for purposes of the motion, that the defendants owned or operated the identified sites.

Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to the extent Pennsylvania’s failure-to-warn theory claimed that a defendant should have communicated internally about MTBE’s dangers at a site that the same defendant owned or operated. The court clarified that the defendants were not, in this portion of the motion, arguing that manufacturers or suppliers had no duty to warn employees of other defendants that owned or operated a Focus Site.

Disposition

The moving defendants’ March 21, 2025 motion for partial summary judgment on the Commonwealth’s negligent failure-to-warn claim was granted in part. The general challenges to Pennsylvania’s evidence of warnings and causation did not warrant summary judgment. But for a site owned or operated by the defendant that manufactured or supplied the MTBE-containing gasoline released there, the failure-to-warn claim associated with that site was granted as to that defendant.