In Re McNeilus Manufacturing Explosion Coordinated Litigation

Background

The case arose from a January 11, 2017 explosion at the McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc., facility in Dodge Center, Minnesota. McNeilus manufactures trucks powered by compressed natural gas stored in pressurized cylinders. The truck involved in the explosion had four natural-gas cylinders connected to a high-pressure hose and hose assemblies manufactured and sold by Swagelok Company and San Diego Valve and Fitting Company.

Several workers were injured, including Eemou See, who was the most seriously injured. Eemou See and Sing See sued Swagelok and San Diego Valve under negligence and strict-liability theories. They alleged that the hose assembly was defective because the hose was improperly seated in a fitting, allowing gas to escape and ignite in the heated baking room.

Swagelok and San Diego Valve denied that their products were defective. They filed a third-party complaint against McNeilus, arguing that McNeilus caused the explosion by bringing the truck indoors without first removing the compressed natural gas and by exposing the truck’s gas cylinders to high heat. McNeilus disputed those allegations and argued that the hose was under-inserted into its fitting. McNeilus also asserted that it was fully responsible for the explosion and sued Swagelok and San Diego Valve for damage to its factory.

Motion to Certify

Swagelok and San Diego Valve asked the court to certify a question under Minnesota’s Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act. Certification is a procedure allowing a federal court to ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to resolve an unsettled question of Minnesota law. The proposed question concerned whether third-party tortfeasors could be jointly and severally liable—that is, required to pay the entire damages award—when an injured employee’s employer also contributed to the injury and the third-party tortfeasors were not individually or collectively more than 50 percent at fault.

The defendants based their request on conflicting Minnesota decisions. One federal decision had concluded that a third-party tortfeasor must be more than 50 percent at fault to be jointly and severally liable for the entire award. A later Minnesota Court of Appeals decision reached the opposite conclusion. The Minnesota Supreme Court had granted review of that state-court decision.

At the May 9, 2019 hearing, the defendants withdrew their request to stay the proceedings at that time. The court denied the stay request on the record but stated that it could consider a stay later.

Analysis

The court declined to certify the question for two reasons.

First, certification was premature. Discovery was still ongoing, dispositive motions had not yet been filed, and trial was still months away. The parties sharply disagreed about how much fault belonged to McNeilus, Swagelok, and San Diego Valve. The court explained that the proposed question depended on the possibility that Swagelok and San Diego Valve would be found less than 50 percent at fault. A jury could instead find them primarily responsible for the explosion. Certifying the question at that stage could therefore produce an advisory answer that would not affect the case if the jury assigned fault differently.

Second, certification was unnecessary and imprudent because the Minnesota Supreme Court was already reviewing a case that squarely presented the same damages-allocation issue. The federal court expected that the state court’s decision would clarify the governing law. Swagelok and San Diego Valve argued that certification would give them an opportunity to participate in the state-court appeal and present their position, but the court found no support for using certification to create that type of participation. The court also rejected their argument that certification was needed to show the Minnesota Supreme Court the potentially harsh consequences of imposing liability for the entire award.

Disposition

The court denied Swagelok and San Diego Valve’s Joint Motion to Certify Question to Minnesota Supreme Court and to Stay Proceedings. The order did not decide whether the hose assemblies were defective, which party caused the explosion, or how damages would ultimately be allocated. The court noted that it could revisit a stay later if the litigation was not resolved before trial.

The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.