Apache Energy v Alcoa (No 2) (2013) 45 WAR 379

Facts: Apache Energy operated and maintained pipelines used by Apache Northwest (and others) to supply gas to customers like Alcoa. An explosion and fire at Apache Energy's facilities resulted in a pipeline rupturing. This interrupted gas supply and Alcoa had to acquire alternative energy supplies at increased cost ($138 million more than under contract with Apache Energy). As the loss was a consequence of physical damage to pipelines in the control of the appellants, the claim in negligence was for damages for pure economic loss (PEL). Apache Energy submitted to the primary judge that it was not reasonably arguable that they owed a duty of care to Alcoa to avoid PEL as 'vulnerability' is a necessary, but not sufficient, reason to impose a duty of care to avoid PEL, and Alcoa was not relevantly 'vulnerable'.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now