California Court Approves Cylinder Explosion Settlement

On Dec. 30, 2024, a federal court in Fresno, California, approved a $255,000 settlement between propane cylinder manufacturer Worthington Industries and two injured plaintiffs. The settlement arose from a February 2021 propane explosion incident that left the plaintiffs with serious permanent injuries and $8 million in medical expenses. 

Enerco Group, a co-defendant and manufacturer of an allegedly defective propane-fueled heater, opposed the settlement, claiming it was not made in good faith because the settlement amount was too low. Enerco and co-defendant M.B. Sturgis Inc. remain in the case. The case is Pierson v. M.B. Sturgis Inc., et al. 

Propane Fueled Heater 

The lawsuit arises from a tragic February 2021 incident that occurred in a trailer owned by Michael Pierson. Pierson and his wife, Courtney, were sleeping in the trailer when, at approximately 6:15 a.m., Courtney got up to turn on a portable propane-fueled Big Buddy Radiant Heater. When she attempted to turn on the heater, there was a flash fire, seriously injuring both Pierson and Courtney. Courtney was burned over 80%-90% of her body, and Pierson was burned over 65% of his body. Three months later, Courtney died of her injuries. 

The Big Buddy Heater had been purchased new by Pierson, who connected it to a propane cylinder manufactured by Manchester Tank, using a hose connector manufactured by M.B. Sturgis. There was also a tankless propane-fueled water heater in the trailer, and this was connected to a propane cylinder that was manufactured by Worthington and equipped with an excess flow valve manufactured by Grand Gas Equipment. Michael Pierson had both the Worthington and the Manchester cylinders refilled with propane at Coloma Food. 

Multiple Defendants 

Michael Pierson filed suit against all of these companies. He alleged that sometime during the night before the explosion, multiple propane leaks developed in the trailer. While he did not identify a single leak, he presented detailed allegations of fault against the defendants. 

First, he alleged that the Manchester cylinder was manufactured in 2007 but filled by Coloma in 2021 without requalification, even though it was outside its mandatory 12-year requalification date. He claimed that propane leaked from the Manchester tank, though he did not identify the exact mechanism of the tank’s alleged failure. Notably, he did not sue Manchester. 

Next, Pierson contended there was a failure of the Sturgis connector between the Manchester tank and the Big Buddy heater. The specific claim was that an O-ring and plastic retainer inside the connector were out of place, resulting in an improper seal. 

Indoor Propane Heater Use? 

Pierson also pointed to the Grand Gas excess flow valve on the Worthington tank. He claimed this valve failed to operate properly so that gas leaked into the trailer from the tank. 

Finally, Pierson argued that Enerco improperly represented that the Big Buddy heater could safely be used indoors. The packaging for the heater claimed that it was the “World’s #1 Brand of Indoor Safe Portable Radiant Heaters.” Pierson claimed this was a misrepresentation in violation of multiple sections of the California Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code. 

The Pierson suit was originally filed in California state court in Los Angeles, but it was transferred to federal court in Fresno. Not long after that transfer, Pierson reached a settlement of the claims against Worthington and Grand Gas. The settlement amount was $255,000. 

Good Faith 

Under California law, a settling party must petition the court for a determination that its settlement with the plaintiff is made in “good faith.” The purpose of this rule is to protect the interests of non-settling defendants who might be left holding a disproportionate share of the liability if a high exposure defendant settles for a nominal amount. 

So, Worthington filed a motion asking the court to determine that the settlement was made in good faith. Enerco opposed the motion. It argued that the settlement was not made in “good faith” because it was far too low in comparison with the amount Pierson was seeking from Enerco. Medical expenses alone were $8 million, it argued, and the plaintiff’s demand to Enerco was $21 million. 

‘Target Defendant’ 

In defense of the settlement, Worthington argued that it and Grand Gas were not responsible for the incident. It pointed to post-incident testing, which found no leak in the Worthington cylinder when the connecting hose was fully tightened, as well as to Pierson’s testimony that he always fully connected the hose to the cylinder and closed the cylinder valve when it was not in use. This evidence, it contended, established that “it was not possible for the Worthington tank to leak at the time of the incident.” 

Pierson also argued in support of the settlement. Enerco, he said, was his “target defendant” for misrepresentation and failure to warn based on Enerco’s claim that the Big Buddy heater was appropriate for indoor use. 

Court Finding 

The motion was first decided by a U.S. magistrate in Fresno. By order dated Nov. 19, 2024, she found that the settlement was made in good faith. It was, she said, “the result of arms-length negotiations between plaintiffs and Worthington.” She concluded that the evidence of Worthington’s liability “is minimal or nonexistent,” in light of the post-incident testing and Pierson’s testimony. 

Finally, she noted that “Enerco admits that post-incident testing revealed a small propane leak between the Enerco heater and the connecting hose.” 

Under court rules, a magistrate’s finding is a recommendation that the U.S. district judge may accept or reject. Enerco promptly asked Judge Jennifer Thurston to reject the magistrate’s recommended finding. On Dec. 30, 2024, Judge Thurston adopted the magistrate’s recommended finding. She concluded that this finding was “supported by the record and by proper analysis.” Accordingly, the settlement between Pierson and Worthington/Grand Gas was implemented, and these defendants were ultimately dismissed from the case pursuant to the settlement. Trial of Pierson’s claims against Enerco, M.B. Sturgis and Coloma Foods is set for Sept. 9. 

It is not unusual for plaintiffs in gas explosion cases to sue multiple defendants, but typically not all these defendants go to trial. Plaintiff attorneys often take advantage of evidence generated in discovery and investigation after the suit is filed to decide on one “target” defendant. The plaintiff then settles with the other defendants, often for what seems to be a nominal amount, and goes for a large recovery against the “target.” That appears to be what happened in this case.