PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging
1986 A.M.C. 197, 447 So. 2d 1058, 1984 La. LEXIS 8356 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party cannot recover for purely economic losses resulting from negligent damage to a third party's property, as such indirect harm falls outside the scope of the tortfeasor's duty of care.
Facts:
- PPG Industries operated a manufacturing plant that required natural gas.
- PPG had a contract with Texaco for a continuous supply of natural gas through a pipeline owned by Texaco.
- Bean Dredging Company conducted dredging operations in the Calcasieu River near PPG's plant.
- During its operations, Bean Dredging negligently struck and damaged Texaco's pipeline.
- The damage to the pipeline interrupted the flow of gas, causing Texaco to be unable to fulfill its supply contract with PPG.
- As a result, PPG was forced to secure an alternative source of fuel at a significantly higher cost.
Procedural Posture:
- PPG Industries, Inc. filed suit against Bean Dredging in a Louisiana trial court to recover economic damages.
- Bean Dredging filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing that the law did not recognize PPG's claim.
- The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed PPG's lawsuit.
- PPG, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the appellee, Bean Dredging.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a dredging contractor who negligently damages a natural gas pipeline owe a duty to the pipeline owner's customer that allows the customer to recover for purely economic losses incurred when its gas supply was interrupted?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, J.
No. The damages to the economic interest of a contract purchaser of natural gas, caused by a contractor's negligent injury to the pipeline, do not fall within the scope of protection intended by the law's imposition of a duty on dredging contractors not to negligently damage pipelines. Applying a duty-risk analysis, the court determined that while Bean's conduct was a cause-in-fact of PPG's loss, policy considerations must limit the scope of the duty. The court reasoned that allowing recovery for such indirect economic losses could lead to liability 'in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class,' citing the classic justification from Ultramares Corp. v. Touche. The duty not to negligently damage property is primarily intended to protect the owner of the property (Texaco), not every third party who has a contractual relationship with the owner. To extend the duty to cover PPG's contractual interest would create a potentially limitless chain of liability to employees, customers, and others affected by the shutdown.
Dissenting - Calogero, J.
Yes, a duty should be found in this specific case. The dissent agrees with applying a duty-risk analysis but disagrees with the majority's conclusion. The dissenting justice argued that PPG's harm—the increased cost of fuel—was a highly foreseeable and direct consequence of Bean's negligence. Bean was dredging next to PPG's plant, near a pipeline marked with warning signs, making it obvious that the pipeline supplied the plant. The dissent distinguishes this direct, foreseeable economic loss from more remote and speculative losses of PPG's employees or customers. By denying recovery for such a foreseeable loss, the majority's application of the duty-risk analysis effectively reverts to the rigid, per se rule of no recovery that the duty-risk analysis was meant to replace.
Analysis:
This case solidifies Louisiana's application of the economic loss rule, which generally precludes recovery in tort for purely economic losses unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage. By employing a 'duty-risk' analysis rather than a rigid categorical bar, the court provides a flexible framework but ultimately uses policy concerns about limitless liability to reach the traditional result. The decision establishes a strong precedent limiting the scope of a tortfeasor's liability, confirming that a defendant's duty of care typically extends only to those who might suffer direct physical or proprietary harm, not to third parties whose losses are purely contractual or economic.
