Article ID: c5769230613c53ebed3ce4a34ad25e9874bf305c38780489fb4f2a3de081d557
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
URL: https://www.businessinsurance.com/texas-court-revives-claim-after-6-75m-refinery-settlement/
Body Text
Texas court revives claim after $6.75M refinery settlement - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Texas court revives claim after $6.75M refinery settlement by Gavin Souter Claims Disputes , Energy , P/C Insurers Mar 16, 2026 The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a contractor and its insurer can attempt to recover part of a $6.75 million settlement paid to injured workers from a subcontractor that installed a fire-suppression system that was accidentally triggered. In S&B Engineers & Constructors Ltd. and Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Scallon Controls Inc. , in a 5-4 decision, the court overturned an appeals court decision and held that S&B and Zurich could attempt to show that a part of the settlement should be attributed to the subcontractor’s alleged negligence. The case stems from a 2015 incident at a Sunoco refinery in South Texas. A brief power outage triggered a fire-suppression system supplied by Scallon Controls, releasing a chemical suppressant. Seven workers on scaffolding fled and were injured in falls. The workers sued S&B and Sunoco. The companies later settled the claims for $6.75 million, including $2.35 million paid directly by S&B, with the rest funded by insurers for S&B and Sunoco. After the settlement, S&B and Zurich sought to recover part of the payment from Scallon, arguing that the subcontractor’s programming of the fire-suppression system contributed to the accident. A Texas appeals court had ruled that since the contractor settled without Scallon’s involvement, it could not pursue the subcontractor afterward. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the companies’ agreement allows responsibility for a loss to be divided according to each party’s share of fault. “Freedom of contract allows parties to bargain for mutually agreeable terms and allocate risks as they see fit,” the court said. The case was sent back to the trial court to decide if any part of the settlement should be given to Scallon. In a dissent joined by three other justices, Justice Jane Bland said the settlement resolved only claims against S&B and Sunoco and should not allow the contractor to shift its payment to the subcontractor. She wrote that “every dollar S&B paid was to settle S&B’s negligence, not Scallon’s.” Related News Howden restructures regional organization, leadership March 16, 2026 University teams move to finals of Spencer-RIMS challenge March 16, 2026 Tennessee judge denies benefits in Kroger gradual injury claim March 16, 2026 SiriusPoint reorganizes into four units March 16, 2026 Judge allows employer negligence evidence in boom-lift wrongful death case March 16, 2026 Employers can’t limit maintenance medical in final admissions of liability March 16, 2026 McGill, AIG partner on AI-driven underwriting March 16, 2026 Insurers fear major losses from Hormuz attacks March 16, 2026 Marsh, Apollo launch insurance facility for Uber March 16, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 13.4
}