Texas’ Supreme Court has denied review for five lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies accountable for failures that occurred during Winter Storm Uri. Roughly 20,000 plaintiffs blamed the companies for billions of dollars in consumer losses.
The decision effectively upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the lawsuits. That court decided the energy companies had no legal duty to provide electricity to homes or businesses during the storm.
Background
In February 2021, during Winter Storm Uri, the Texas power grid failed. This impacted millions of Texans, reportedly causing billions of dollars in property damage and significant loss of life.
Several investigations concluded these losses resulted from the failure of some Power Generation Companies (PGCs) to adequately winterize their facilities to industry reliability standards, despite knowledge of past damage caused by inadequate weatherization and express warnings that extreme winter weather would occur again in 2021.
Tens of thousands of plaintiffs—including retail customers, Texas residents, and insurers—filed numerous lawsuits against specific PGCs, seeking to recover damages directly traceable to their negligence.
These cases were transferred into a single multi-district litigation (MDL) court proceeding. The 281st District Court in Harris County, with Judge Sylvia Matthews presiding, was designated as the MDL pretrial court by the Texas MDL Panel.
Judge Matthews selected five “bellwether cases”—meaning test cases that are representative of the rest—for consideration. The cases were In Re Bernadine Edwards et at, In Re All America Insurance Company et al., In Re Randy Turner, In Re Valerie Daniels, and In Re Ernest Peterman.
The PGCs filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ tort claims, arguing they had no basis in fact or Texas law.
Judge Matthews granted the motion in part, but permitted plaintiffs’ negligence, negligent undertaking, nuisance, and gross negligence claims to proceed. The PGCs immediately sought dismissal of the remaining claims via mandamus relief—meaning intervention from the First Court of Appeals in Houston.
On Appeal
In December 2023, the First Court directed the MDL court to grant the PGCs’ motion to dismiss on the remaining claims—finding they “have no basis in law under the facts alleged.” The opinion was written by Chief Justice Terry Adams.
The bellwether plaintiffs quickly sought an en banc reconsideration—meaning the entire First Court of Appeals would hear the case. A year later, reconsideration was denied by a 3-1 vote.
Plaintiffs then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas to grant mandamus relief, permitting the underlying litigation to proceed.
In briefing the Court, plaintiffs argued that the First Court decision “effectively announced a fundamental revolution in Texas tort law, holding—for the first time—that private [PGCs] owe no duty of ordinary care to Texas citizens.”
“The immediate impact of the decision below is to immunize the PGCs—now and in perpetuity—from any and all tort liability for harms to Texas citizens and property owners caused by their acts and omissions. The harmful and pervasive impacts of such a ruling cannot be overstated,” the brief continued.
Plaintiffs claimed the PGCs directly caused deaths, personal injuries, and substantial and widespread property damage throughout Texas, which was well within the MDL trial court’s discretion.
“This Court’s intervention is necessary, and mandamus relief is warranted,” concluded the brief.
On March 27, Texas’ Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for mandamus, effectively upholding the court of appeals’ dismissal.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: [email protected].
No ads. No paywalls. No government grants. No corporate masters.
Just real news for real Texans.
Support Texas Scorecard to keep it that way!
