Loading
Utilities
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Electrical Engineering, Forensic Engineering, Power Distribution, Fire Origin & Cause, Economic Damages
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Texas State
In the early hours of October 15, 2010, a fire spread through Coleman Upholstery in Houston, Texas, damaging buildings, business equipment, vehicles, and nearby property. A utility pole carrying a transformer maintained by CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC stood near the area where investigators determined the fire began. Several weeks earlier, electrical service at the property had been interrupted after the transformer reportedly sparked and produced a loud popping sound. CenterPoint technicians responded on two occasions, completed repair work, and restored service. Following the October fire, Harris County Fire Marshal investigators concluded that dry vegetation near the pole was probably ignited by a spark or other electrical activity associated with an unspecified anomaly in the electrical distribution system.
Howard E. Coleman and Coleman Upholstery, Inc. later pursued negligence claims against CenterPoint concerning the inspection, maintenance, repair, and condition of the electrical equipment. The case included competing technical opinions about the transformer's high-voltage bushing, external fuse, copper grounding conductor, electrical arcing, and diagnostic testing. An initial ruling excluding Coleman's electrical equipment expert was reversed on appeal, allowing the claims to return to the trial court. A jury later found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused Coleman's damages. After the trial court reduced part of the lost-profits award, it entered a final judgment of $5,835,044.49 in damages and prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2023.
About five weeks before the fire, Coleman experienced a loss of electrical service after the transformer on the utility pole reportedly emitted sparks. A loud popping sound was also reported during the equipment problem. CenterPoint technicians responded twice, performed repair work, and restored power to the property. During the later litigation, those service calls became part of the dispute over the condition of the transformer and whether additional electrical testing should have been performed.
The fire began before dawn and caused extensive damage to Coleman Upholstery and surrounding property. Surveillance footage recorded a brief, intense flash near the electrical distribution pole at approximately 2:43 a.m. Investigators found melted copper around the pole and determined that much of the copper conductor extending from the transformer toward the ground was missing. The Harris County Fire Marshal concluded that dry vegetation was probably ignited by a spark or electrical activity resulting from an unspecified anomaly in the electrical distribution system.
The investigation did not identify one specific transformer component as the source of the electrical anomaly. That issue later became the subject of competing technical testimony during the civil proceedings.
Coleman and neighboring property owners filed negligence claims against CenterPoint in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas. They alleged that failures involving the inspection, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the transformer and related electrical equipment contributed to the fire. The plaintiffs designated Michael McGraw to provide technical opinions concerning transformer operation, electrical failure mechanisms, and fire causation. CenterPoint denied the allegations and challenged McGraw's qualifications under Texas Rule of Evidence 702.
The trial court initially excluded McGraw after finding that he was not qualified to testify about the applicable standard of care. CenterPoint then obtained a no-evidence summary judgment after his testimony was excluded. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed McGraw's experience with medium-voltage electrical equipment, transformers, distribution systems, testing, and failure analysis. The court concluded that his technical background was sufficient to permit his testimony, reversed the summary judgment, and returned the negligence claims to the trial court.
After the case returned to the trial court, the neighboring property owners settled their claims while Coleman's claims continued. McGraw testified that failures involving the high-voltage bushing, external fuse, and copper grounding conductor contributed to an electrical event that included a ground fault and arc flash. Under his theory, the electrical discharge reached vegetation near the utility pole and started the fire.
CenterPoint presented Jeffrey Hautanen, who disagreed with McGraw's proposed sequence. Hautanen testified that his post-fire examination and testing did not establish that the transformer itself had failed before the fire. He also identified other possible ignition sources at the property and testified that some of the observed damage to the transformer and related components could have resulted from the fire rather than preceded it.
The jury considered the competing technical testimony along with surveillance footage, photographs, CenterPoint's service history, technician testimony, the Fire Marshal investigation, and evidence concerning Coleman's losses. It found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused the occurrence. The jury awarded damages for past lost profits, property damage, and harm to personal and business credit.
On damages, Coleman's financial expert James Claywell and CenterPoint's financial expert Jeffrey Compton presented competing calculations of Coleman's claimed lost profits. The jury initially awarded $3,633,917 in past lost profits, but the trial court later reduced that amount to $2,763,435 through remittitur. An amended final judgment awarded Coleman $5,835,044.49 in damages and prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. CenterPoint appealed several parts of the judgment, while Coleman challenged the reduction of the lost-profits award.
CenterPoint argued on appeal that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over parts of the dispute and challenged the evidence supporting breach, causation, damages, and certain evidentiary rulings. Coleman filed a cross-appeal seeking restoration of the higher lost-profits award returned by the jury. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals rejected the parties' challenges and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Both sides later requested rehearing.
After reviewing the rehearing requests, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals withdrew its March 2022 opinion and issued a substitute opinion on July 6, 2023. The court again rejected CenterPoint's argument that Coleman first had to pursue the dispute before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. It determined that the claims concerned alleged negligence resulting in property damage rather than a dispute over regulated utility rates or services.
The court also found legally sufficient evidence supporting the jury's findings on breach and causation. Coleman's challenge to the reduced lost-profits award was rejected as well. The judgment therefore remained in place. The final published decision is CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman, 672 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).
Court:
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Case Name:
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman
A 2010 fire damaged Coleman Upholstery and nearby property in Houston after reported electrical problems involving a CenterPoint transformer.
The negligence dispute focused on transformer maintenance, electrical faults, grounding components, fire causation, and diagnostic testing.
In 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the exclusion of Coleman's electrical equipment expert, allowing the negligence claims to proceed.
A jury found CenterPoint negligent, with competing expert testimony addressing electrical failure mechanisms and lost-profit damages.
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the $5,835,044.49 judgment, including prejudgment interest, in 2023.
Electrical Fires
Transformers
Arc Flash
Electrical Grounding
Electrical Inspections
Electrical Defects
High Voltage
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations
Utility Accidents
In the early hours of October 15, 2010, a fire spread through Coleman Upholstery in Houston, Texas, damaging buildings, business equipment, vehicles, and nearby property. A utility pole carrying a transformer maintained by CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC stood near the area where investigators determined the fire began. Several weeks earlier, electrical service at the property had been interrupted after the transformer reportedly sparked and produced a loud popping sound. CenterPoint technicians responded on two occasions, completed repair work, and restored service. Following the October fire, Harris County Fire Marshal investigators concluded that dry vegetation near the pole was probably ignited by a spark or other electrical activity associated with an unspecified anomaly in the electrical distribution system.
Howard E. Coleman and Coleman Upholstery, Inc. later pursued negligence claims against CenterPoint concerning the inspection, maintenance, repair, and condition of the electrical equipment. The case included competing technical opinions about the transformer's high-voltage bushing, external fuse, copper grounding conductor, electrical arcing, and diagnostic testing. An initial ruling excluding Coleman's electrical equipment expert was reversed on appeal, allowing the claims to return to the trial court. A jury later found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused Coleman's damages. After the trial court reduced part of the lost-profits award, it entered a final judgment of $5,835,044.49 in damages and prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2023.
About five weeks before the fire, Coleman experienced a loss of electrical service after the transformer on the utility pole reportedly emitted sparks. A loud popping sound was also reported during the equipment problem. CenterPoint technicians responded twice, performed repair work, and restored power to the property. During the later litigation, those service calls became part of the dispute over the condition of the transformer and whether additional electrical testing should have been performed.
The fire began before dawn and caused extensive damage to Coleman Upholstery and surrounding property. Surveillance footage recorded a brief, intense flash near the electrical distribution pole at approximately 2:43 a.m. Investigators found melted copper around the pole and determined that much of the copper conductor extending from the transformer toward the ground was missing. The Harris County Fire Marshal concluded that dry vegetation was probably ignited by a spark or electrical activity resulting from an unspecified anomaly in the electrical distribution system.
The investigation did not identify one specific transformer component as the source of the electrical anomaly. That issue later became the subject of competing technical testimony during the civil proceedings.
Coleman and neighboring property owners filed negligence claims against CenterPoint in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas. They alleged that failures involving the inspection, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the transformer and related electrical equipment contributed to the fire. The plaintiffs designated Michael McGraw to provide technical opinions concerning transformer operation, electrical failure mechanisms, and fire causation. CenterPoint denied the allegations and challenged McGraw's qualifications under Texas Rule of Evidence 702.
The trial court initially excluded McGraw after finding that he was not qualified to testify about the applicable standard of care. CenterPoint then obtained a no-evidence summary judgment after his testimony was excluded. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed McGraw's experience with medium-voltage electrical equipment, transformers, distribution systems, testing, and failure analysis. The court concluded that his technical background was sufficient to permit his testimony, reversed the summary judgment, and returned the negligence claims to the trial court.
After the case returned to the trial court, the neighboring property owners settled their claims while Coleman's claims continued. McGraw testified that failures involving the high-voltage bushing, external fuse, and copper grounding conductor contributed to an electrical event that included a ground fault and arc flash. Under his theory, the electrical discharge reached vegetation near the utility pole and started the fire.
CenterPoint presented Jeffrey Hautanen, who disagreed with McGraw's proposed sequence. Hautanen testified that his post-fire examination and testing did not establish that the transformer itself had failed before the fire. He also identified other possible ignition sources at the property and testified that some of the observed damage to the transformer and related components could have resulted from the fire rather than preceded it.
The jury considered the competing technical testimony along with surveillance footage, photographs, CenterPoint's service history, technician testimony, the Fire Marshal investigation, and evidence concerning Coleman's losses. It found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused the occurrence. The jury awarded damages for past lost profits, property damage, and harm to personal and business credit.
On damages, Coleman's financial expert James Claywell and CenterPoint's financial expert Jeffrey Compton presented competing calculations of Coleman's claimed lost profits. The jury initially awarded $3,633,917 in past lost profits, but the trial court later reduced that amount to $2,763,435 through remittitur. An amended final judgment awarded Coleman $5,835,044.49 in damages and prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. CenterPoint appealed several parts of the judgment, while Coleman challenged the reduction of the lost-profits award.
CenterPoint argued on appeal that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over parts of the dispute and challenged the evidence supporting breach, causation, damages, and certain evidentiary rulings. Coleman filed a cross-appeal seeking restoration of the higher lost-profits award returned by the jury. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals rejected the parties' challenges and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Both sides later requested rehearing.
After reviewing the rehearing requests, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals withdrew its March 2022 opinion and issued a substitute opinion on July 6, 2023. The court again rejected CenterPoint's argument that Coleman first had to pursue the dispute before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. It determined that the claims concerned alleged negligence resulting in property damage rather than a dispute over regulated utility rates or services.
The court also found legally sufficient evidence supporting the jury's findings on breach and causation. Coleman's challenge to the reduced lost-profits award was rejected as well. The judgment therefore remained in place. The final published decision is CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman, 672 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).
Electrical Equipment Expert Witness: Plaintiff
Michael McGraw testified for Coleman regarding the transformer, electrical distribution equipment, testing history, and proposed failure sequence. He testified that failures involving the high-voltage bushing, external fuse, and copper grounding conductor contributed to the electrical event. McGraw also discussed Megger testing and high-potential testing as methods for checking for leakage current, partial discharge, or a compromise to ground that might not be detected through visual inspection.
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness: Defense
Jeffrey Hautanen testified for CenterPoint regarding the transformer, electrical components, fire damage, surveillance footage, and possible ignition sources. He disagreed with McGraw's explanation of the electrical event and testified that his examination and testing did not establish that the transformer failed before the fire. Hautanen also testified that some of the damaged electrical components could have been affected by the fire after ignition had already occurred.
Financial Damages Expert Witness: Plaintiff
James Claywell testified for Coleman concerning claimed lost profits. His analysis included business records, financial performance, and calculations used to estimate the economic losses associated with the fire.
Financial Damages Expert Witness: Defense
Jeffrey Compton testified for CenterPoint concerning Coleman's claimed lost profits. He presented a competing financial analysis using different calculations and reached a lower estimate of the claimed lost-profit damages.
Electrical Engineering Expert Witness
Electrical engineering expert witnesses are often engaged in disputes involving transformers, electrical distribution equipment, grounding systems, protective devices, and equipment failures. They typically review system design, maintenance records, testing data, damaged components, and operating conditions to assess how an electrical event may have occurred. They may also evaluate issues involving electrical faults, arcing, insulation breakdown, grounding performance, and compliance with applicable electrical standards.
Service History Can Affect Transformer Failure Analysis
The transformer had experienced reported electrical problems several weeks before the October 2010 fire. Those problems included sparks, a popping sound, a power interruption, and two CenterPoint service visits. At trial, the earlier incidents formed part of the evidence considered when the parties addressed the transformer's condition before the fire.
McGraw questioned whether the repeated equipment problems called for additional diagnostic testing. CenterPoint disputed that its earlier response showed negligent maintenance or established a connection between the September problems and the October fire.
Electrical Tests Can Detect Conditions Not Seen Visually
One part of the technical dispute concerned the difference between visual inspection and electrical diagnostic testing. McGraw discussed Megger testing and high-potential testing as methods for checking for leakage current, partial discharge, or a compromise to ground. He testified that those tests could provide information about electrical conditions that might not be apparent during an external inspection.
His testimony did not establish that every utility transformer requires those tests after every service call. His opinion instead addressed the circumstances surrounding the repeated electrical problems associated with the equipment involved in this case.
Fire Damage Can Support More Than One Failure Sequence
McGraw and Hautanen interpreted several pieces of physical evidence differently. McGraw relied on the damaged high-voltage bushing, copper conductor, transformer oil loss, burn evidence, and surveillance footage when describing an electrical-fault sequence. Hautanen disagreed with that account and testified that some of the same damage could have occurred after the fire began.
The jury was therefore asked to consider when the electrical damage occurred in relation to the fire. A damaged component found after an incident does not by itself establish whether the damage existed before ignition or resulted from heat and fire exposure.
Expert Admissibility Changed the Course of the Case
McGraw's exclusion initially prevented the plaintiffs from presenting their technical theory through his testimony. After the trial court excluded him, CenterPoint obtained summary judgment. The 2017 appellate ruling reversed that result after finding that McGraw's experience with medium-voltage equipment, transformers, electrical testing, and failure analysis qualified him to testify.
The case then returned to the trial court, where the jury heard both McGraw's and Hautanen's explanations of the electrical evidence. Their testimony was considered with the Fire Marshal findings, surveillance footage, physical evidence, service records, and other trial testimony.
Lost-Profit Damages Required Separate Financial Proof
The jury's finding on negligence did not settle the amount of Coleman's economic damages. Claywell and Compton presented different lost-profit analyses, and the jury initially awarded $3,633,917 in past lost profits. The trial court later reduced that figure to $2,763,435 after reviewing the supporting evidence.
Coleman challenged the reduction on appeal, but the Fourteenth Court of Appeals left the lower figure in place. The resulting judgment combined the reduced lost-profit award with other damages and prejudgment interest for a total of $5,835,044.49, plus post-judgment interest.
The case moved through two appellate stages before reaching its final result. In 2017, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the exclusion of Michael McGraw and the summary judgment that followed, returning Coleman's negligence claims to the trial court. A jury later found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused the occurrence, and the trial court entered a multimillion-dollar judgment after reducing part of the lost-profits award. CenterPoint appealed the liability and damages findings, while Coleman challenged the reduction of his lost profits. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals rejected both sides' challenges in its July 6, 2023 substitute opinion and affirmed the judgment. The reported decision is cited as CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman, 672 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).
What happened before the Coleman Upholstery fire?
Several weeks before the October 2010 fire, the transformer near Coleman Upholstery reportedly emitted sparks during an electrical outage and later produced a loud popping sound. CenterPoint technicians responded on two occasions and restored electrical service. Those service events later became part of the dispute over the condition, inspection, and testing of the electrical equipment.
What did fire investigators conclude about the cause?
Harris County Fire Marshal investigators placed the area of origin near the electrical distribution pole. They concluded that dry vegetation was probably ignited by a spark or other electrical activity resulting from an unspecified anomaly in the electrical distribution system. Their conclusion did not identify one transformer component as the definitive initiating failure.
What did the electrical experts disagree about?
Michael McGraw testified that failures involving the high-voltage bushing, external fuse, and grounding conductor contributed to the electrical event. Jeffrey Hautanen disputed that sequence and testified that his examination did not establish a transformer failure before ignition. They also disagreed over whether some of the damaged electrical components were part of the initiating sequence or were damaged after the fire had already begun.
Why did the case reach the Court of Appeals twice?
The first appeal followed the trial court's exclusion of McGraw and the resulting summary judgment for CenterPoint. In 2017, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed those rulings and returned the negligence claims to the trial court. The second appellate stage followed the jury verdict and final judgment, producing an opinion in 2022 and a substitute opinion in 2023.
Electrical Equipment Expert Witness: Plaintiff
Michael McGraw testified for Coleman regarding the transformer, electrical distribution equipment, testing history, and proposed failure sequence. He testified that failures involving the high-voltage bushing, external fuse, and copper grounding conductor contributed to the electrical event. McGraw also discussed Megger testing and high-potential testing as methods for checking for leakage current, partial discharge, or a compromise to ground that might not be detected through visual inspection.
Forensic Engineering Expert Witness: Defense
Jeffrey Hautanen testified for CenterPoint regarding the transformer, electrical components, fire damage, surveillance footage, and possible ignition sources. He disagreed with McGraw's explanation of the electrical event and testified that his examination and testing did not establish that the transformer failed before the fire. Hautanen also testified that some of the damaged electrical components could have been affected by the fire after ignition had already occurred.
Financial Damages Expert Witness: Plaintiff
James Claywell testified for Coleman concerning claimed lost profits. His analysis included business records, financial performance, and calculations used to estimate the economic losses associated with the fire.
Financial Damages Expert Witness: Defense
Jeffrey Compton testified for CenterPoint concerning Coleman's claimed lost profits. He presented a competing financial analysis using different calculations and reached a lower estimate of the claimed lost-profit damages.
Electrical Engineering Expert Witness
Electrical engineering expert witnesses are often engaged in disputes involving transformers, electrical distribution equipment, grounding systems, protective devices, and equipment failures. They typically review system design, maintenance records, testing data, damaged components, and operating conditions to assess how an electrical event may have occurred. They may also evaluate issues involving electrical faults, arcing, insulation breakdown, grounding performance, and compliance with applicable electrical standards.
Service History Can Affect Transformer Failure Analysis
The transformer had experienced reported electrical problems several weeks before the October 2010 fire. Those problems included sparks, a popping sound, a power interruption, and two CenterPoint service visits. At trial, the earlier incidents formed part of the evidence considered when the parties addressed the transformer's condition before the fire.
McGraw questioned whether the repeated equipment problems called for additional diagnostic testing. CenterPoint disputed that its earlier response showed negligent maintenance or established a connection between the September problems and the October fire.
Electrical Tests Can Detect Conditions Not Seen Visually
One part of the technical dispute concerned the difference between visual inspection and electrical diagnostic testing. McGraw discussed Megger testing and high-potential testing as methods for checking for leakage current, partial discharge, or a compromise to ground. He testified that those tests could provide information about electrical conditions that might not be apparent during an external inspection.
His testimony did not establish that every utility transformer requires those tests after every service call. His opinion instead addressed the circumstances surrounding the repeated electrical problems associated with the equipment involved in this case.
Fire Damage Can Support More Than One Failure Sequence
McGraw and Hautanen interpreted several pieces of physical evidence differently. McGraw relied on the damaged high-voltage bushing, copper conductor, transformer oil loss, burn evidence, and surveillance footage when describing an electrical-fault sequence. Hautanen disagreed with that account and testified that some of the same damage could have occurred after the fire began.
The jury was therefore asked to consider when the electrical damage occurred in relation to the fire. A damaged component found after an incident does not by itself establish whether the damage existed before ignition or resulted from heat and fire exposure.
Expert Admissibility Changed the Course of the Case
McGraw's exclusion initially prevented the plaintiffs from presenting their technical theory through his testimony. After the trial court excluded him, CenterPoint obtained summary judgment. The 2017 appellate ruling reversed that result after finding that McGraw's experience with medium-voltage equipment, transformers, electrical testing, and failure analysis qualified him to testify.
The case then returned to the trial court, where the jury heard both McGraw's and Hautanen's explanations of the electrical evidence. Their testimony was considered with the Fire Marshal findings, surveillance footage, physical evidence, service records, and other trial testimony.
Lost-Profit Damages Required Separate Financial Proof
The jury's finding on negligence did not settle the amount of Coleman's economic damages. Claywell and Compton presented different lost-profit analyses, and the jury initially awarded $3,633,917 in past lost profits. The trial court later reduced that figure to $2,763,435 after reviewing the supporting evidence.
Coleman challenged the reduction on appeal, but the Fourteenth Court of Appeals left the lower figure in place. The resulting judgment combined the reduced lost-profit award with other damages and prejudgment interest for a total of $5,835,044.49, plus post-judgment interest.
The case moved through two appellate stages before reaching its final result. In 2017, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed the exclusion of Michael McGraw and the summary judgment that followed, returning Coleman's negligence claims to the trial court. A jury later found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused the occurrence, and the trial court entered a multimillion-dollar judgment after reducing part of the lost-profits award. CenterPoint appealed the liability and damages findings, while Coleman challenged the reduction of his lost profits. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals rejected both sides' challenges in its July 6, 2023 substitute opinion and affirmed the judgment. The reported decision is cited as CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman, 672 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).
What happened before the Coleman Upholstery fire?
Several weeks before the October 2010 fire, the transformer near Coleman Upholstery reportedly emitted sparks during an electrical outage and later produced a loud popping sound. CenterPoint technicians responded on two occasions and restored electrical service. Those service events later became part of the dispute over the condition, inspection, and testing of the electrical equipment.
What did fire investigators conclude about the cause?
Harris County Fire Marshal investigators placed the area of origin near the electrical distribution pole. They concluded that dry vegetation was probably ignited by a spark or other electrical activity resulting from an unspecified anomaly in the electrical distribution system. Their conclusion did not identify one transformer component as the definitive initiating failure.
What did the electrical experts disagree about?
Michael McGraw testified that failures involving the high-voltage bushing, external fuse, and grounding conductor contributed to the electrical event. Jeffrey Hautanen disputed that sequence and testified that his examination did not establish a transformer failure before ignition. They also disagreed over whether some of the damaged electrical components were part of the initiating sequence or were damaged after the fire had already begun.
Why did the case reach the Court of Appeals twice?
The first appeal followed the trial court's exclusion of McGraw and the resulting summary judgment for CenterPoint. In 2017, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed those rulings and returned the negligence claims to the trial court. The second appellate stage followed the jury verdict and final judgment, producing an opinion in 2022 and a substitute opinion in 2023.
What was the final result of CenterPoint Energy v. Coleman?
The jury found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused Coleman's damages. After the trial court reduced the past lost-profits award, the amended final judgment totaled $5,835,044.49 in damages and prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in its July 6, 2023 substitute opinion, and the reported decision is cited as CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman, 672 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).
Electrical Fires
Transformers
Arc Flash
Electrical Grounding
Electrical Inspections
Electrical Defects
High Voltage
Fire Cause and Origin Investigations
Utility Accidents
Environmental Engineering, +4
Utilities
Mechanical Engineering, +4
Utilities
What was the final result of CenterPoint Energy v. Coleman?
The jury found that CenterPoint's negligence proximately caused Coleman's damages. After the trial court reduced the past lost-profits award, the amended final judgment totaled $5,835,044.49 in damages and prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in its July 6, 2023 substitute opinion, and the reported decision is cited as CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC v. Coleman, 672 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.).