Loading
Manufacturing
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Civil Engineering, Hydrology, Hydraulic Engineering, Drainage, Meteorology & Weather
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Texas State
Court:
Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor concerned flood damage to 30 homes in Van Vleck and Bay City, Texas, during Hurricane Harvey in August 2017. Tenaris operated a pipe fabrication facility on land formerly used as a sod farm and retained Fluor Enterprises to design and build its drainage system. Jones & Carter reviewed the plan and recommended its approval by the county drainage district. The homeowners alleged that defects in the facility’s drainage design and maintenance diverted or concentrated stormwater toward their properties. Their claims against Tenaris included negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086, and negligent nuisance.
The civil engineering questions involved detention ponds, an earthen berm, Outflow 1, surface-water movement, drainage analysis, and hydrologic modeling. The trial court directed a verdict for Tenaris on gross negligence, while the jury found Tenaris liable on the remaining theories. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed in 2023. On May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the homeowners had not produced legally sufficient evidence that Tenaris’s conduct was a but-for cause of flooding at any of the 30 properties. Because the record lacked property-specific drainage and hydrologic analysis showing whether the homes would have flooded without the alleged defects, the Court rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Hurricane Harvey struck Texas and caused extensive flooding in Matagorda County. Thirty homeowners in Van Vleck and Bay City claimed that stormwater from the nearby Tenaris pipe fabrication facility contributed to the flooding of their properties. The facility occupied a former sod farm and used a stormwater system with detention ponds and a raised perimeter berm, with one discharge location identified as Outflow 1.
The homeowners sued Tenaris, Fluor Enterprises, and Jones & Carter, alleging that the drainage system designed and constructed for the Tenaris facility caused flood damage to their homes. Their claims against Tenaris included negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086, and negligent nuisance. The allegations placed the drainage design, its implementation and maintenance, the movement of surface water, and flood causation at issue.
Jones & Carter settled before trial, after which the properties were divided into three geographic zones for a liability-only proceeding; the trial court then directed a verdict for Tenaris and Fluor on gross negligence. Plaintiffs’ civil engineer Gabriel Novak testified that the constructed berm departed from the design plans and that the drainage design directed too much water toward Outflow 1. Tenaris’s engineering expert Jill Trevino testified that the as-built drawings showed the berm complied with the design specifications and contained no holes; she opined that stormwater would not have escaped from the facility, although she performed no modeling, mapping, or surveying of the area. The jury found Tenaris liable for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent nuisance in all three zones, while Fluor was found negligent in Zone C and later settled. Tenaris and the homeowners agreed to $2.8 million in damages, the trial court entered judgment for that amount plus interest, and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed on August 31, 2023.
The Supreme Court of Texas heard oral argument after Tenaris obtained review of the appellate decision. Tenaris maintained that the homeowners had not shown that any of their properties would have avoided flooding but for the alleged drainage defects. The review focused on whether generalized testimony about additional water was sufficient or whether the technical issues required property-specific drainage and hydrologic analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgments below after finding legally insufficient evidence of but-for causation. It determined that Novak’s testimony could support a finding that the Tenaris drainage system contributed some additional water to the surrounding area, but he could not identify the cause of flooding at any of the 30 properties. Novak acknowledged that he had not completed the topographic review, detailed drainage analysis, hydrologic modeling, soil-map assessment, or waterway study needed to answer that question. The Court held that expert testimony was required under the circumstances and that the homeowners’ prior flooding history could not supply the missing causal connection. It reversed the lower judgments and rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Supreme Court of Texas
Case Name:
Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor
Hurricane Harvey flooded 30 homes near Tenaris’s Bay City pipe fabrication facility in August 2017.
Homeowners alleged that the facility’s detention ponds, berm, and Outflow 1 diverted stormwater toward their properties.
A jury found Tenaris liable, and the parties agreed to $2.8 million in damages.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed in May 2025.
The Supreme Court rendered judgment for Tenaris because the homeowners lacked property-specific drainage and hydrologic proof of but-for causation.
Flood Damage
Flood plains
Storm drain channel
Hurricane damage analysis
Storm Damage Assessment
Water Resources
Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor concerned flood damage to 30 homes in Van Vleck and Bay City, Texas, during Hurricane Harvey in August 2017. Tenaris operated a pipe fabrication facility on land formerly used as a sod farm and retained Fluor Enterprises to design and build its drainage system. Jones & Carter reviewed the plan and recommended its approval by the county drainage district. The homeowners alleged that defects in the facility’s drainage design and maintenance diverted or concentrated stormwater toward their properties. Their claims against Tenaris included negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086, and negligent nuisance.
The civil engineering questions involved detention ponds, an earthen berm, Outflow 1, surface-water movement, drainage analysis, and hydrologic modeling. The trial court directed a verdict for Tenaris on gross negligence, while the jury found Tenaris liable on the remaining theories. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed in 2023. On May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the homeowners had not produced legally sufficient evidence that Tenaris’s conduct was a but-for cause of flooding at any of the 30 properties. Because the record lacked property-specific drainage and hydrologic analysis showing whether the homes would have flooded without the alleged defects, the Court rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Hurricane Harvey struck Texas and caused extensive flooding in Matagorda County. Thirty homeowners in Van Vleck and Bay City claimed that stormwater from the nearby Tenaris pipe fabrication facility contributed to the flooding of their properties. The facility occupied a former sod farm and used a stormwater system with detention ponds and a raised perimeter berm, with one discharge location identified as Outflow 1.
The homeowners sued Tenaris, Fluor Enterprises, and Jones & Carter, alleging that the drainage system designed and constructed for the Tenaris facility caused flood damage to their homes. Their claims against Tenaris included negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086, and negligent nuisance. The allegations placed the drainage design, its implementation and maintenance, the movement of surface water, and flood causation at issue.
Jones & Carter settled before trial, after which the properties were divided into three geographic zones for a liability-only proceeding; the trial court then directed a verdict for Tenaris and Fluor on gross negligence. Plaintiffs’ civil engineer Gabriel Novak testified that the constructed berm departed from the design plans and that the drainage design directed too much water toward Outflow 1. Tenaris’s engineering expert Jill Trevino testified that the as-built drawings showed the berm complied with the design specifications and contained no holes; she opined that stormwater would not have escaped from the facility, although she performed no modeling, mapping, or surveying of the area. The jury found Tenaris liable for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent nuisance in all three zones, while Fluor was found negligent in Zone C and later settled. Tenaris and the homeowners agreed to $2.8 million in damages, the trial court entered judgment for that amount plus interest, and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed on August 31, 2023.
The Supreme Court of Texas heard oral argument after Tenaris obtained review of the appellate decision. Tenaris maintained that the homeowners had not shown that any of their properties would have avoided flooding but for the alleged drainage defects. The review focused on whether generalized testimony about additional water was sufficient or whether the technical issues required property-specific drainage and hydrologic analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgments below after finding legally insufficient evidence of but-for causation. It determined that Novak’s testimony could support a finding that the Tenaris drainage system contributed some additional water to the surrounding area, but he could not identify the cause of flooding at any of the 30 properties. Novak acknowledged that he had not completed the topographic review, detailed drainage analysis, hydrologic modeling, soil-map assessment, or waterway study needed to answer that question. The Court held that expert testimony was required under the circumstances and that the homeowners’ prior flooding history could not supply the missing causal connection. It reversed the lower judgments and rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Civil Engineering Expert Witness - Plaintiffs’ Side
Gabriel Novak testified for the homeowners as a civil engineer. His testimony addressed the drainage-basin design, detention ponds, berm configuration, Outflow 1, and the movement of stormwater from the Tenaris property. Based on a site visit, photographs, calculations, and model testing, he stated that the constructed berm departed from the design and that the design and implementation were a factor in the flooding. The Texas Supreme Court held that his testimony did not establish but-for causation because he had not completed the property-specific drainage and hydrologic analysis needed to determine what caused the individual homes to flood.
Engineering Expert Witness - Defense Side
Jill Trevino testified for Tenaris as its engineering expert. Based on her review of the facility’s as-built drawings, she testified that the berm was constructed according to the design specifications and contained no holes. She opined that Tenaris did not cause the flooding because stormwater would not have escaped from the facility, although she performed no modeling, mapping, or surveying of the area.
Hydrology Expert Witness
Hydrology analysis may examine site conditions, slopes, soils, drainage patterns, rainfall data, and changes in land use. The work can include tracing runoff pathways, comparing predevelopment and constructed conditions, testing drainage capacity, and performing property-specific hydrologic modeling.
Meteorology Expert Witness
Meteorological analysis may assess rainfall totals, storm duration, and the geographic distribution of precipitation using weather-station data, radar imagery, satellite information, and storm reports. In flood litigation, those findings can provide rainfall inputs for hydrologic modeling and help separate storm conditions from water attributed to site drainage.
Drainage Expert Witness
Drainage analysis may address stormwater plans, grading, detention systems, berms, drainage channels, outflow locations, and maintenance conditions. The work can compare design plans with constructed conditions, calculate system capacity, trace runoff pathways, and assess whether a drainage system altered water movement toward particular properties.
But-for causation required property-specific evidence.
Evidence that the Tenaris drainage system added water to the surrounding area did not establish whether any particular home would have remained dry without the alleged defects. The record did not connect Tenaris’s conduct to flooding at each of the 30 properties.
General engineering testimony did not replace site-specific analysis.
The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the complex flooding inquiry required technical analysis connecting the facility’s drainage system to the individual homes. The record lacked the necessary topographic review, detailed drainage analysis, hydrologic modeling, soil-map assessment, and waterway study.
Evidence of negligence did not establish causation.
Testimony concerning alleged departures from the berm design and drainage-maintenance problems could support findings about Tenaris’s conduct. It did not establish that the homes would have avoided flooding during Hurricane Harvey without those alleged conditions.
Each liability theory required proof of causation.
The homeowners pursued negligence, negligent nuisance, and negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086. Testimony identifying Tenaris as “a factor” in the flooding did not establish the required but-for causal connection.
Alternative flood causes remained part of the analysis.
Extreme rainfall, elevation differences, soil permeability, subsidence, impervious cover, waterways, and adjacent water flows could affect flooding at the properties. Evidence that the homes had not flooded previously did not supply the missing property-specific technical analysis.
Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor proceeded from a jury verdict for the homeowners and an appellate affirmance to a Texas Supreme Court reversal based on legally insufficient proof of but-for causation. The civil engineering evidence addressed the detention ponds, perimeter berm, Outflow 1, surface-water movement, and drainage-system performance, but it did not establish whether the individual homes would have flooded without the alleged defects. The Court therefore reversed the lower judgments and rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Why was evidence that Tenaris was a “substantial factor” insufficient?
Texas law required proof of both substantial-factor and but-for causation. The homeowners still had to establish that their properties would not have flooded without Tenaris’s alleged conduct, which the record did not show.
What property-specific flood analysis was missing?
The record lacked technical analysis tracing runoff from the Tenaris facility to the individual properties and determining whether the homes would have flooded without the alleged drainage defects. The Supreme Court concluded that the complexity of water movement across the area required technical proof connecting the facility to the claimed damage.
Did evidence of drainage defects establish flood causation?
No. Evidence concerning the berm, maintenance conditions, and the concentration of water at Outflow 1 could support findings about the drainage system, but negligence alone did not establish but-for causation. The drainage evidence showed possible additional flooding in the surrounding area without proving that any specific home would have remained dry.
Why did the causation ruling defeat all three liability theories?
Negligence, negligent nuisance, and negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086 each required proof that Tenaris’s conduct caused the property damage. The jury instructions also required a causal act without which the injury would not have occurred.
Why was the homeowners’ lack of prior flooding insufficient?
A property’s first flood during Hurricane Harvey did not establish that the Tenaris facility caused it. The Court identified extreme rainfall, elevation differences, soil permeability, subsidence, impervious cover, waterways, and adjacent water flows as other factors that could affect flooding.
Civil Engineering Expert Witness - Plaintiffs’ Side
Gabriel Novak testified for the homeowners as a civil engineer. His testimony addressed the drainage-basin design, detention ponds, berm configuration, Outflow 1, and the movement of stormwater from the Tenaris property. Based on a site visit, photographs, calculations, and model testing, he stated that the constructed berm departed from the design and that the design and implementation were a factor in the flooding. The Texas Supreme Court held that his testimony did not establish but-for causation because he had not completed the property-specific drainage and hydrologic analysis needed to determine what caused the individual homes to flood.
Engineering Expert Witness - Defense Side
Jill Trevino testified for Tenaris as its engineering expert. Based on her review of the facility’s as-built drawings, she testified that the berm was constructed according to the design specifications and contained no holes. She opined that Tenaris did not cause the flooding because stormwater would not have escaped from the facility, although she performed no modeling, mapping, or surveying of the area.
Hydrology Expert Witness
Hydrology analysis may examine site conditions, slopes, soils, drainage patterns, rainfall data, and changes in land use. The work can include tracing runoff pathways, comparing predevelopment and constructed conditions, testing drainage capacity, and performing property-specific hydrologic modeling.
Meteorology Expert Witness
Meteorological analysis may assess rainfall totals, storm duration, and the geographic distribution of precipitation using weather-station data, radar imagery, satellite information, and storm reports. In flood litigation, those findings can provide rainfall inputs for hydrologic modeling and help separate storm conditions from water attributed to site drainage.
Drainage Expert Witness
Drainage analysis may address stormwater plans, grading, detention systems, berms, drainage channels, outflow locations, and maintenance conditions. The work can compare design plans with constructed conditions, calculate system capacity, trace runoff pathways, and assess whether a drainage system altered water movement toward particular properties.
But-for causation required property-specific evidence.
Evidence that the Tenaris drainage system added water to the surrounding area did not establish whether any particular home would have remained dry without the alleged defects. The record did not connect Tenaris’s conduct to flooding at each of the 30 properties.
General engineering testimony did not replace site-specific analysis.
The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the complex flooding inquiry required technical analysis connecting the facility’s drainage system to the individual homes. The record lacked the necessary topographic review, detailed drainage analysis, hydrologic modeling, soil-map assessment, and waterway study.
Evidence of negligence did not establish causation.
Testimony concerning alleged departures from the berm design and drainage-maintenance problems could support findings about Tenaris’s conduct. It did not establish that the homes would have avoided flooding during Hurricane Harvey without those alleged conditions.
Each liability theory required proof of causation.
The homeowners pursued negligence, negligent nuisance, and negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086. Testimony identifying Tenaris as “a factor” in the flooding did not establish the required but-for causal connection.
Alternative flood causes remained part of the analysis.
Extreme rainfall, elevation differences, soil permeability, subsidence, impervious cover, waterways, and adjacent water flows could affect flooding at the properties. Evidence that the homes had not flooded previously did not supply the missing property-specific technical analysis.
Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor proceeded from a jury verdict for the homeowners and an appellate affirmance to a Texas Supreme Court reversal based on legally insufficient proof of but-for causation. The civil engineering evidence addressed the detention ponds, perimeter berm, Outflow 1, surface-water movement, and drainage-system performance, but it did not establish whether the individual homes would have flooded without the alleged defects. The Court therefore reversed the lower judgments and rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Why was evidence that Tenaris was a “substantial factor” insufficient?
Texas law required proof of both substantial-factor and but-for causation. The homeowners still had to establish that their properties would not have flooded without Tenaris’s alleged conduct, which the record did not show.
What property-specific flood analysis was missing?
The record lacked technical analysis tracing runoff from the Tenaris facility to the individual properties and determining whether the homes would have flooded without the alleged drainage defects. The Supreme Court concluded that the complexity of water movement across the area required technical proof connecting the facility to the claimed damage.
Did evidence of drainage defects establish flood causation?
No. Evidence concerning the berm, maintenance conditions, and the concentration of water at Outflow 1 could support findings about the drainage system, but negligence alone did not establish but-for causation. The drainage evidence showed possible additional flooding in the surrounding area without proving that any specific home would have remained dry.
Why did the causation ruling defeat all three liability theories?
Negligence, negligent nuisance, and negligence per se under Texas Water Code § 11.086 each required proof that Tenaris’s conduct caused the property damage. The jury instructions also required a causal act without which the injury would not have occurred.
Why was the homeowners’ lack of prior flooding insufficient?
A property’s first flood during Hurricane Harvey did not establish that the Tenaris facility caused it. The Court identified extreme rainfall, elevation differences, soil permeability, subsidence, impervious cover, waterways, and adjacent water flows as other factors that could affect flooding.
What happened to the $2.8 million flood-damage judgment?
The parties agreed to $2.8 million in damages after the jury found Tenaris liable, and the trial court entered judgment for that amount plus interest. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment and rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.
Flood Damage
Flood plains
Storm drain channel
Hurricane damage analysis
Storm Damage Assessment
Water Resources
Manufacturing
Metallurgy, +4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing
What happened to the $2.8 million flood-damage judgment?
The parties agreed to $2.8 million in damages after the jury found Tenaris liable, and the trial court entered judgment for that amount plus interest. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment and rendered judgment for Tenaris on all claims.