Who is a “Manufacturer” Under the LPLA? Lessons from a Chlorine Gas Leak

When a chlorine gas hose ruptured at a Honeywell facility in Prairieville, the resulting injuries to four workers were undeniable. However, in the legal battle that followed, the success of their claim didn’t hinge on their injuries, but on a single word: Manufacturer. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), suing the company that sold or tested the equipment isn’t enough—you must prove they meet the strict legal definition of a manufacturer to hold them strictly liable.

The Honeywell Chlorine Gas Leak: A Case Study

The case involved four workers employed by Proserve Hydro Co. who were injured when a Resistoflex chlorine hose ruptured at a Honeywell plant. The workers filed suit against Triplex, Inc., the company that had sold the hose to Honeywell. While the injuries were serious, the defense filed for summary judgment, arguing that Triplex was merely a distributor, not the party responsible for the hose’s design or construction.

Four workers who were employed by the Prairieville-based Proserve Hydro Co. were working on at a Honeywell International facility when a hose carrying chlorine gas ruptured, causing them injury. The workers sued Triplex, Inc., the company that had sold the hose to Honeywell, under the theory that it was liable for their injuries as the manufacturer of the hose. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, applying the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), granted summary judgment in favor of Triplex, and the workers appealed.

Defining a “Manufacturer” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA)

To win a products liability case in Louisiana, a plaintiff must prove four elements under the LPLA. The most foundational element is proving the defendant is actually a “manufacturer.” Under Louisiana law, a manufacturer is someone who produces, makes, fabricates, or designs a product. While this seems straightforward, the law also includes “statutory manufacturers”—entities that hold themselves out as makers or exercise significant control over the product’s design.

In its review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted that The Louisiana Supreme Court has identified four elements that a plaintiff must establish in a products liability suit under the LPLA. It focused particualrly on the requirement that the defendant must be the “manufacturer” of the product according to the state’s definition. The lower court’s summary judgment was based on Triplex’s position that it was not a manufacturer of the hose within the meaning of the LPLA. The hose in question was a “Resistoflex Chlorine Hose Part # HB30HB30HB-1560.” It consisted of a Teflon inner-core surrounded by a braided material jacket. The core and jacket were assembled by the Crane Resistoflex Company and shipped in bulk to Triplex for distribution. Upon receipt of an order from Honeywell, Triplex cut the hose to the requested length, installed Resistoflex-approved fittings to either end, and pressure-tested the hose. Triplex recorded the specifications of this work on an assembly test certificate which listed “Resistoflex” as the manufacturer of the hose.

Why Cutting and Testing Does Not Make a Seller a Manufacturer

In this specific case, Triplex had received the hose in bulk, cut it to the requested length, and installed fittings. The court ruled that these “simple acts” did not transform the seller into a manufacturer. Because the rupture happened far from the fittings and Triplex exercised no control over the hose’s core design or quality specifications, the court found they could not be held liable under the LPLA. This highlights a common trap: assuming that the company you bought the product from is the one legally responsible for its failure.

The court looked to the LPLA to determine whether, based on its cutting the Resistoflex hose and installing the end fittings, Triplex fit the definition of “manufacturer.” It noted that the workers’ expert conceded that the hose rupture occured a significant distance away from any end fitting and did not appear to result from the modifications Triplex performed. It also affirmed the point that “the simple act of testing a product after modifications,” as Triplex did, “does not transform a seller into a statutory ‘manufacturer.’” The court was not persuaded that Triplex exercised any “control over… a characteristic of the design, construction or quality of the product,” given that Honeywell specified the exact Resistoflex part number and the end fittings it required. Accordingly, the court concluded that Triplex was not a manufacturer under the state law definition, and therefore could not be found liable for the workers’ injuries under the LPLA.

Although the workers presented a sympathetic case — on-the-job injuries are a serious matter that no one wants to have to face — their defeat at summary judgment demonstrates the importance of choosing a theory of recovery carefully. Louisiana’s product liability law, while certainly intended to protect innocent people from dangerous and defective items, does not aim to create liability where it does not exist. The requirement under the LPLA for a plaintiff to prove a defendant’s status as a manufacturer seeks to permit recovery only from parties who are truly responsible for creating a product.

The Critical Importance of Identifying the Right Defendant

The defeat of this claim at the summary judgment stage serves as a stark warning. Identifying the correct defendant is the first and most vital step in any litigation. If the workers had identified the original manufacturer or pursued a different theory of negligence against the seller, the outcome might have been different. In complex industrial accidents, you need a legal team that understands the “fine print” of the LPLA.

A sympathetic case and a clear injury aren’t always enough to guarantee a recovery in Louisiana. As the Honeywell case proves, a deep understanding of the LPLA is required to navigate the technicalities of industrial litigation. If you have been injured by defective equipment or a chemical release, don’t leave your case to chance. Contact our product liability team today to ensure your claim is filed against the right parties with the right strategy.

If you have been injured by a defective product, call the Berniard Law Firm today at 504-521-6000 and speak with an expert on the LPLA who can evaluate your case and get you the recovery you deserve.