Brittany Lynn Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC
Unpublished, February 2, 2022 (2022)
Rule of Law:
Louisiana law permits recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress without accompanying physical injury if the plaintiff first establishes general negligence and then demonstrates an 'especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress' arising from their specific circumstances.
Facts:
- In the early morning hours of April 10, 2020, an explosion occurred at the Valero Refining Meraux, LLC (Valero) refinery in Meraux, Louisiana.
- The explosion resulted in a 'fire ball' that loomed over the refinery for several hours and caused a shock wave that shook the nearby apartment of Brittany Spencer and her eight-year-old daughter, Chloe Mae LaFrance.
- The explosion and fire occurred because Valero operators altered an approved plan to reseat a Pressure Safety Valve (PSV) without additional review, leading to an outlet valve failure, over-pressurization, and a chemical release, including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
- Brittany Spencer, who was four months pregnant, and Chloe were awakened by the explosion, experienced fright, and Brittany feared for her family's safety due to potential harmful chemical release.
- Brittany Spencer and her family temporarily departed their apartment between April 10 and April 13, 2020, and upon returning, she refused to allow her children to play outside due to continued anxiety.
- Valero monitored SO2 levels in surrounding neighborhoods but did not contemporaneously communicate these results to the public, leaving residents like Brittany Spencer concerned about adverse health effects.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 18, 2021, Brittany Spencer filed suit against Valero Refining Meraux, LLC individually and on behalf of her two minor children in the Justice of the Peace Court for the Parish of St. Bernard.
- The Justice of the Peace Court issued judgments dismissing Brittany Spencer's claims, finding insufficient medical evidence for emotional anguish, no evidence of physical property damage, and no intentional negligence by Valero.
- Brittany Spencer sought review in the district court, and the case was tried de novo in the St. Bernard 34th Judicial District Court.
- The district court found Valero negligent and awarded Brittany Spencer $1,000 plus court costs, and $250 plus court costs on behalf of her minor daughter, Chloe Mae LaFrance, for genuine emotional distress.
- Valero Refining Meraux, LLC (relator) sought supervisory review of the district court's judgment in the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal (appellee/respondent).
- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal initially denied Valero's writ application (Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, unpub., 2021-0383 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/13/21)).
- Valero Refining Meraux, LLC filed a writ application with the Louisiana Supreme Court.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted Valero's writ 'for the sole purpose of remanding this case to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and full opinion.'
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court err in finding Valero Refining Meraux, LLC negligent and awarding damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress to a plaintiff and her minor child, even without accompanying physical injury, where they lived in close proximity to a refinery explosion, experienced fright, and had genuine concerns about health due to a chemical release?
Opinions:
Majority - Tiffany Gautier Chase
No, the district court did not err in finding Valero negligent and awarding damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even without physical injury, as Ms. Spencer and Chloe satisfied the requirements under Louisiana law. The court first affirmed the district court's finding of general negligence under La. C.C. art. 2315, citing Valero's Unauthorized Discharge Notification Report and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Incident Report. These reports established that Valero breached its duty to control air contaminants by failing to conform its conduct to LAC 33.III.905(A) when operators altered an approved plan to reseat a PSV, causing an explosion, fire, and chemical release. This negligence was both the cause-in-fact and legal cause of emotional distress. Next, the court addressed damages for emotional distress absent physical injury, requiring an 'especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the [plaintiff’s] special circumstances.' The court found a reasonable factual basis for the district court's finding, noting Ms. Spencer and Chloe's proximity (less than 2,000 feet) to the explosion, the visible 'fire ball' and shockwave, Chloe's fright, Ms. Spencer's fear for her pregnant self and family's safety from chemical release, their temporary displacement, and Valero's failure to contemporaneously communicate air quality results. The court cited Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. for indicia of reliability (proximity, witnessing danger, contemporaneous reports) and the compensability of legitimate health concerns, concluding the district court was not clearly wrong.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the viability of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in Louisiana, particularly for environmental incidents, even without physical injury. It highlights the importance of timely and transparent communication from industrial facilities during emergencies, as a lack thereof can significantly contribute to compensable emotional distress. The court's detailed application of the 'especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress' standard provides useful guidance for future plaintiffs seeking recovery in similar circumstances, emphasizing factors like proximity, visible danger, and reasonable health concerns. This decision may encourage greater corporate responsibility in emergency response and community engagement for industrial operations.
