Appeals Court Grants ExxonMobil Mandamus Relief
The 14th Court of Appeals has conditionally granted mandamus relief to ExxonMobil after a trial court denied the company’s request for summary judgment in an injury lawsuit. The appellate court found the denial improper under the workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy doctrine.
Background of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed by Jake Winters and Ashley Lowe, both Texas residents, seeking damages for injuries Winters allegedly suffered on March 6, 2022. The incident occurred while Winters was working at an ExxonMobil facility in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Alleged Workplace Injuries
Court records indicate Winters claimed he sustained injuries to his head, neck, back, brain, and other areas following the unexpected release of carbon dioxide into a vessel where he was performing work. Based on these allegations, he asserted Texas common-law claims for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability.
ExxonMobil’s Workers’ Compensation Defense
ExxonMobil raised several defenses, including the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The company argued that workers’ compensation benefits were Winters’s sole remedy and moved for traditional summary judgment on the negligence and gross negligence claims.
Amended Claims and Renewed Summary Judgment Motion
After Winters amended his petition to add claims for intentional torts, ExxonMobil filed a second amended motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. Through this motion, the company sought dismissal of all remaining claims.
Employment Relationship and Insurance Coverage
At the time of the incident, Winters was employed by Brown & Root Industrial Services, a subcontractor at the facility. ExxonMobil asserted that it had secured workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Brown & Root employees, including Winters, which triggered the workers’ compensation bar and precluded the lawsuit.
Trial Court Denial and Mandamus Petition
The trial court denied ExxonMobil’s second amended summary judgment motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. ExxonMobil then sought mandamus relief from the appellate court, arguing that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous.
Appellate Court’s Ruling
The 14th Court of Appeals concluded that the case presented extraordinary circumstances justifying mandamus relief. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its prior ruling, grant ExxonMobil’s second amended motion for summary judgment, and dismiss all claims against ExxonMobil. The court stated it was confident the trial court would comply and that a writ would issue only if it failed to do so.
