Coffey Modica founding partner, Michael Coffey, shares his expert perspective in Risk & Insurance, on the liabilities and risk management lessons from the August 2025 Clairton, Penn. coke plant explosion, which tragically claimed two lives.
By David Weldon | March 17, 2026
On August 11, 2025, less than two months after Nippon Steel purchased U.S. Steel for $14.9 billion, a blast ripped through U.S. Steel’s Clairton, Penn. coke production factory. Two workers were killed and 11 others were injured in the explosion.
Twenty EMS agencies, 14 local fire departments, and 15 ambulances rushed to the plant that day. Damage was so severe that it took hours to locate the bodies of the deceased workers.
The full ramifications of the event are yet to be understood, but the calamity has resulted in significant safety violation fines, wrongful death law suits and multiple insurance claims. It could also result in significant reforms in how such plants are managed, monitored and insured. Or, at least that is the hope of some industry watchers.
“Tragedies like this must lead to change,” U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board member Sylvia Johnson said following the event. “Our investigation will identify not just what went wrong but what must be done to ensure workers across this country are protected from similar hazards.”
In the meantime, Nippon Steel must not only repair but substantially upgrade the Clairton plant. It must also come to terms with the fact it will pay far more for the plant than it anticipated.
The role of coke and the Clairton plant
Coke is a critical raw material used in the making of steel. Produced by heating coal in ovens at 2000 degrees Farenheit, it acts as the primary fuel and chemical reducing agent in blast furnaces that convert iron ore into molten iron in the steel making process. The Clairton plant is the largest coke producer in the United States.
Coke manufacturing is also highly detrimental to local air quality. Clairton routinely records some of the worst air quality days in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Details around the Clairton blast and the plant’s overall safety practices are under federal investigation, including the decades in which U.S. Steel owned the plant, and assumed liability by Nippon Steel as the new owner. Neither U.S. Steel or Nippon Steel responded to requests for comment.
The Clairton Coke Works has a documented history of safety and environmental issues. There have been other gas leaks and explosions at the plant in recent years. A smaller explosion in 2009 killed a contract worker, and a fire in 2018 injured 14 workers.
Wrongful death law suits have now been filed by relatives of the workers killed in the 2025 explosion. Both suits allege that U.S. Steel, and subsequently Nippon Steel, failed to properly and safely maintain gas valves that were found to have failed, resulting in the explosion. Subsequent injury claims and emotional distress suits could be filed by injured workers and their families.
A long road ahead likely for claims resolutions
Generally, the insurance claims resolution process for an industrial accident of this magnitude could take years, says Eric Kingsley, partner at Los Angeles-based Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers. This is especially true if the investigation reveals safety issues.
“Insurers have scrutinized underwriting disclosures, maintenance history, and whether known conditions were properly addressed,” explains Blaine Rogers, partner at Davis Levin Livingston, personal injury lawyers in Honolulu, HI. “A poor safety record can increase settlement pressure, influence regulatory findings, and shape how both courts and insurers evaluate foreseeability and risk management practices.”
These developments are legally significant in insurance disputes, as regulatory findings can influence causation analysis and impact discussions around punitive damages or enhanced exposure, Rogers said.
Companies have to maintain an overarching coverage architecture and have transparent claims handling, Rogers added. For insurers, fair adjustment of clearly covered losses is essential to maintaining trust in the risk transfer system. Any unreasonable delay or denial can expose carriers to a bad faith liability.
In the case of Clairton, “Claims handling is still ongoing. This is extremely complex where there are multiple insurers and policy layers,” Rogers explains. “We have seen reservation of rights letters issued early in the process, as well as declaratory judgment actions that follow. Third-party liability claims by injured workers’ families and contractors have created additional coverage obligations. Where insurers delay, underpay, or deny claims without a reasonable basis, bad faith allegations have started to arise.”
Loss prevention lessons being learned
While some loss prevention strategies are already emerging from the plant explosion, final conclusions will depend on completed investigations. Rogers says industrial catastrophes of this nature show the importance of redundant safety systems on high-energy equipment and enhanced process hazard analysis and management of change protocols.
“These are indicators of whether an employer met its duty of care,” Rogers explains. “When systems are inadequately implemented, exposure expands beyond primary liability and can influence coverage disputes, as well as bad faith claims if insurers or the insured mishandle resulting losses.”
Meanwhile, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) did issue preliminary findings, and cited several safety violations. Fines of $118,000 and $61,000 respectively were levied against The Clairton Coke Works, and MPW Industrial Services Inc., which had been hired to clean a gas isolation valve the morning of the explosion.
“This event really typifies the kinds of risks associated with these large industrial operations,” explains Michael W. Coffey, founding partner of Coffey Modica LLP, an insurance defense firm headquartered in Tarrytown, NY.
“This disaster opens U.S. Steel and other impacted entities to property damage claims, personal injury and wrongful death liabilities, and business interruption losses, which presumably had downstream effects on customers, as well as environmental remediation obligations.”
One of the clear lessons from this event is that equipment upgrades and modernization can save money, and more importantly, human lives, Coffey explains. Failure to do either can have the opposite result.
The impact of safety history on insurance claims and legal suits
A history of prior safety incidents can have a considerable impact on the way in which an organization is scrutinized, especially in terms of litigation potential, explains Kingsley. Previous incidents, including fatalities and citations, may be investigated to assess whether there was a pattern of non-compliance or unresolved safety issues.
The Clairton plant received more than $57 million in local fines for safety violations since 2020, plus $10.6 million in federal EPA fines. The company also agreed to spend $24.5 million on upgrades and clean air programs in 2018 as part of a federal settlement for failing to control air pollution.
In terms of litigation potential, prior incidents can have an impact on the way in which the organization responds to and addresses potential issues, especially in terms of foreseeability.
In addition, plaintiffs argue that a pattern of similar incidents demonstrates prior knowledge of hazards and failure to remediate them, said Rogers. This will definitely trigger heightened regulatory scrutiny, OSHA obviously investigates fatal incidents and may issue serious or willful violation citations if systemic deficiencies are found. State labor authorities and environmental agencies may also conduct inquiries if emissions or hazardous releases occurred.
At the core of cases filed against the plant so far is the issue of the 70-plus year-old gas valve and whether it should have been swapped out long ago, Coffey said. The valve was manufactured in 1953, Coffey explains. The plant itself was built in 1916.
MPW contractors were conducting maintenance on the gas valves when the explosion occurred. Another company, Valves Incorporated of Pittsburgh, had refurbished the value 13 years earlier. Inspection after the blast revealed that valve body had fully split open, and other valves also showed signs of damage.
Neither company responded to requests for comment.
“If this was a case of deferred maintenance, any money saved will probably now be lost in settlements or verdicts,” Coffee said. The event also acts as a cautionary tale for companies to fully assess the risk they are acquiring with any business dealing.
An expected blame game
Since the explosion, the firms involved have gone on defense and engaged in a bit of blame game over who is ultimately responsible. The Chemical Safety Board (CSB), the federal agency responsible for investigating major chemical incidents, is still performing its investigation into the incident. But they did release preliminary findings in September 2025, identifying a cast-iron gas isolation valve as the source of the incident. This was followed by the CSB issuing two safety recommendations in late December 2025.
The first calls on U.S. Steel to perform a thorough investigation of the entire facility and identify any potential hazards, Coffey explains. The second recommendation calls on U.S. Steel to address and reduce any safety risks that are discovered through their evaluation.
Meanwhile, Engineering Design & Testing Corp (EDT), the firm retained by U.S. Steel to conduct their own independent investigation, released its own preliminary findings in mid-October, Coffey said. According to them, U.S. Steel’s procedures call for using low-pressure steam to clean the valves, not high-pressure water, as was used immediately prior to the explosion.
Fostering a culture of safety and accountability
Industrial explosions are typically the end result of a series of systemic problems related to safety culture, maintenance practices, and internal reporting practices, Kingsley said. Organizations that have an open reporting system in place, protect their employees from retaliation for reporting safety concerns, and treat safety concerns as critical compliance issues rather than operational inconveniences are more likely to be able to prevent catastrophic losses.
“From an employment law standpoint, encouraging employees to voice their safety concerns without reprisal is not only good business practice, but essential risk management practice as well,” Kingsley explains.
Coffey agrees, saying the Clairton explosion was a wakeup call to similar industrial plants to re-examine their own safety standards and protocols in order to best protect their facilities and their workers, heading off any large-scale events that may leave the company liable.
U.S. Steel appears to be taking some steps to strengthen safety protocols, as reported in October. The company said it is prohibiting the use of high-pressure water to clean valves, and training employees to prevent similar disasters, according to Coffey.
Overall, what will now be needed at the Clairton plant – as well as other similar plants – will be continuous hazard monitoring; transparent reporting and accountability; a culture of safety in which workers can identify and report risks; and the modernization of outdated equipment and processes.
“In the wake of this incident, companies may prioritize examining older equipment that can create unnecessary risk when operated past their use-by date,” Coffey explains. “The American steel industry has also already been shifting away from blast furnaces like those used at Clairton, to cheaper, electric arc furnaces. This incident may further hasten a shift that has already been underway.”
###