The Louisiana Second Circuit reversed the denial of XTO Energy’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ intentional-tort claims against XTO with prejudice on September 30, 2026. The court relied on the plaintiffs’ statement that they did not wish to pursue those claims; it did not decide who caused the explosion or whether the alleged facility defect existed.
What the court decided
In consolidated writ proceedings associated with the Hardaway litigation, XTO challenged the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment on intentional tort. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reversed that denial, granted XTO’s motion on the intentional-tort claims, and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The court also assessed appellate costs to the plaintiffs.
The court explained: “Because plaintiffs state that they do not wish to pursue their intentional tort claims against XTO, we reverse the trial court and grant XTO’s motion for partial summary judgment on intentional tort.” The official Second Circuit opinions index lists the September 30, 2026 judgment, authored by Judge Marcotte, as “Reversed; Claims Dismissed with Prejudice.” Read the opinion and consult the court’s opinions index.
Why the intentional-tort claims were dismissed
The stated basis was procedural: plaintiffs said they did not wish to pursue their intentional-tort claims against XTO. The court acted on that disclaimer in ruling on XTO’s partial-summary-judgment motion; the opinion does not present the judgment as a finding on the factual merits of the alleged defect.
#1 Best Overall
What the ruling does—and does not—resolve
Claims against XTO
The disposition covers the plaintiffs’ intentional-tort claims against XTO Energy, Inc. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be pursued again as the same claims against XTO.
Explosion cause and alleged defect
The opinion does not determine that XTO caused the explosion, nor does it decide whether the alleged facility defect existed. Its stated reasoning is the plaintiffs’ decision not to pursue the intentional-tort claims against XTO.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Other claims and Aeropres
This disposition should not be read as dismissing every claim in the underlying litigation or resolving claims against Aeropres Corporation. The ruling identified here addresses the intentional-tort claims against XTO only.
Background to the case
The litigation arose from a May 9, 2022 flash fire and explosion at a propane bulk storage and transportation facility in Cotton Valley, Louisiana. XTO owned the facility, while Aeropres Corporation leased and operated it. According to the court opinion’s background, employees were transferring liquid propane when a hose leaked and the propane ignited.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Rehearing and procedural status
The judgment states that an application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2166. The available court materials cited here do not establish whether rehearing or further review was later sought, so the September 30 disposition should not be described as procedurally final beyond its stated terms.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
