Cody Hatt Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Mother’s Case Against FirstEnergy in 2–1 Ruling

On October 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential 2–1 opinion in Lisa DeBar v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 25-2006, affirming the dismissal of a wrongful death and survival lawsuit over the death of Cody Hatt, a 29-year-old demolition worker. Hatt died after a metal catwalk collapsed during demolition work at the former Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station in Carmichaels, Pennsylvania, on September 28, 2022.

Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Stephanos Bibas. Judge L. Felipe Restrepo dissented, arguing that the complaint was strong enough to go forward to discovery.

This is an appellate ruling, not a settlement. There is no settlement fund, claim form or claim deadline. The court did not hold a trial and did not find that the worksite was safe. It held that, even if every fact in the complaint were true, the complaint did not state a claim under Pennsylvania law against the defendants before the court.

DeBar v. FirstEnergy Corp.: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Settlement website	None. This is a court ruling, not a settlement
Claim form or deadline	None
Plaintiff	Lisa DeBar, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Cody Hatt
Deceased worker	Cody Hatt, age 29
Accident date	September 28, 2022
Location	Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania
Hatt’s employer	North American Dismantling (independent demolition contractor)
Defendants on appeal	FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Service Co. and Allegheny Energy Supply
Appeals court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Appellate case number	25-2006
District court case number	2:24-cv-05164 (E.D. Pa., Chief Judge Wendy Beetlestone)
Argued	April 20, 2026
Decision date	October 14, 2026
Vote	2–1
Majority	Judge D. Michael Fisher (author), joined by Judge Stephanos Bibas
Dissent	Judge L. Felipe Restrepo
Main legal issues	Retained-control exception for independent contractors; open-and-obvious danger
Law applied	Pennsylvania tort law
Outcome	Dismissal affirmed
Counsel	For the plaintiff: Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky; for the defendants: Duane Morris

What Happened to Cody Hatt?

According to the Third Circuit’s opinion, Allegheny Energy Supply owned the Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, a coal-fired plant that was operated by FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Service. Coal generation was shut down in 2013 under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, and demolition began in 2022, including two cooling towers of about 500 feet and three emissions stacks ranging from 540 to over 700 feet.

FirstEnergy Service hired North American Dismantling under a contract worth more than $4 million. Hatt worked for North American Dismantling. On September 28, 2022, he was assigned to dismantle a metal catwalk attached to a smokestack. The catwalk failed and collapsed, and Hatt fell and landed on another catwalk about 40 feet below. He was taken to a hospital at West Virginia University, where he died.

Hatt is survived by two minor children, his father and his mother, Lisa DeBar.

Procedural History

• June 2024: DeBar filed a wrongful death and survival action in Pennsylvania state court against numerous defendants.
• FirstEnergy Service removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction. DeBar and Hatt were Michigan residents, and the defendants are all citizens of Ohio.
• February 2025: DeBar voluntarily dismissed her claims against a separate group of defendants, the EnergyHarbor defendants.
• April 29, 2025: The district court granted motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). It dismissed the claims against FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Service with prejudice and the claims against Allegheny Energy Supply without prejudice.
• DeBar chose not to amend her complaint and stood on it, so the dismissal of the claims against Allegheny Energy Supply became with prejudice.
• April 20, 2026: The Third Circuit heard oral argument.
• October 14, 2026: The Third Circuit affirmed in a precedential 2–1 opinion.

Why Did Lisa DeBar Sue?

DeBar sued the companies that owned and operated the plant, arguing they owed duties to protect the demolition workers. She alleged that FirstEnergy Service retained actual control over the demolition work through:

• detailed demolition specifications;
• the “FE Generation Personal Safety Manual” and a Code of Conduct;
• a project manager and a purchaser representative assigned to the job;
• safety audits and monitoring; and
• instructions to the contractor’s personnel about how work was to be done.

She also argued that FirstEnergy Corp. was vicariously liable for FirstEnergy Service, and that Allegheny Energy Supply, as the plant owner, was liable as the landowner.

What Did the Majority Decide?

The court addressed each defendant separately.

1. FirstEnergy Service: No Retained Control

Under Pennsylvania law, a party that hires an independent contractor is generally not responsible for the contractor’s acts or omissions, or for injuries to the contractor’s employees (Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc., 11 A.3d 456 (Pa. 2011)). An exception exists when the hiring party retains control over the manner in which the work is done.

The majority described this exception as narrow and explained that retained control requires control over the contractor’s methods of work or operative detail, so that the contractor is “not entirely free to do the work in his own way.” A hiring party does not retain control by:

• imposing safety requirements, or supervising and enforcing them;
• employing on-site safety representatives, even with authority to stop work;
• reserving a right to inspect progress or receive reports;
• giving contract specifications (directing a contractor what to do is different from directing how to do it); or
• assigning an employee to the project who stays in daily contact with the contractor.

The court reviewed all 24 paragraphs of DeBar’s control allegations and concluded each failed for at least one of these reasons: they were conclusory legal statements, described safety requirements or inspections, described contract specifications, or described a project manager’s oversight. The contract also stated that North American Dismantling was an independent contractor, “alone” responsible for the manner and methods of the work and for its employees’ safety.

2. FirstEnergy Corp.: No Vicarious Liability

DeBar’s only theory against FirstEnergy Corp. was that it was vicariously liable for FirstEnergy Service’s negligence. Because the court found no negligence by FirstEnergy Service, the claim against FirstEnergy Corp. failed. The court also noted that DeBar chose not to seek leave to amend.

3. Allegheny Energy Supply: Open and Obvious Danger

Under Pennsylvania law, a landowner owes invitees a duty to protect from foreseeable harm, but not when the danger is known or obvious (Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983)). That rule applies to employees of independent contractors, including demolition contractors. The majority held that, accepting the complaint’s facts as true, the danger was open and obvious because:

• the industrial facility had been shut down for nine years and was being torn down;
• North American Dismantling had agreed in the contract that it examined the site and informed itself of the physical conditions it would encounter; and
• the overall risk, not necessarily the specific hazard that caused the injury, need be apparent.

The court reasoned that Hatt and his employer were like the contractors in earlier Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases who knew the conditions of the properties they worked on.

The Pleading Standard

DeBar argued that the district court held her to too high a standard without discovery, especially because Hatt had died and could not provide information. The majority rejected that argument, explaining that a complaint must contain enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the elements of the claim (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). It stated that it did not question the plausibility of her allegations and gave her the benefit of every doubt, but that even if all her allegations were true, FirstEnergy Service still would not be liable. The court also said it found no authority giving insufficiently pleaded claims extra leeway because the case involves a death.

Why Did Judge Restrepo Dissent?

Judge Restrepo wrote that the majority “prohibitively raises the bar for wrongful death claims brought by employees of independent contractors.” His main points:

• Under Pennsylvania law, retained control is a jury question unless the evidence shows no liability as a matter of law, and Pennsylvania courts apply that standard after evidence is developed, not on the pleadings.
• The majority borrowed from summary judgment and post-trial cases to decide a motion to dismiss. He argued the standards for Rule 12(b)(6) and summary judgment remain distinct (citing Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)).
• Beil only held that “certain” safety-related conduct is not control as a matter of law, and left open that safety conduct in other circumstances could amount to control.
• DeBar alleged specific actions, such as safety audits that led to instructions about how the work was to be performed, and enforcing strict compliance with FirstEnergy’s specifications, not merely the existence of a project manager.
• On open and obvious danger, the complaint did not say the plant or the catwalk was in disrepair, and the majority drew an inference against the plaintiff. Obviousness is usually a jury question.

He warned that the majority introduced “a heightened pleading standard for independent contractor cases that I fear will stifle worthy claims.”

What Does the Ruling Mean?

The decision is precedential in the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It applies Pennsylvania law, so it is most significant for federal cases applying Pennsylvania law to claims by contractors’ employees against hiring companies and property owners.

The ruling does not:

• create immunity for every property owner that uses a contractor;
• find the Hatfield’s Ferry worksite was safe;
• decide anything about workers’ compensation benefits; or
• establish a settlement or compensation program for anyone.

Liability still depends on the facts, the contracts, the law of the state involved, and what the complaint can specifically allege.

The Law Behind the Case

Federal Court Applying State Law

DeBar’s case was in federal court because of diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332), after removal from state court (28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446). Under the Erie doctrine (Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)), a federal court sitting in diversity applies state substantive law, here Pennsylvania’s, but federal procedural rules, including Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b)(6), Twombly and Iqbal

A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint states a plausible claim. Under Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), courts accept well-pleaded facts as true but do not credit legal conclusions or formulaic recitations of elements.

The Independent Contractor Rule and Retained Control

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 409 states the general rule that a hiring party is not liable for physical harm caused by an independent contractor’s acts, and § 414 describes the exception where the hirer retains control. Pennsylvania follows this approach (Beil). Pennsylvania law also recognizes limited other exceptions in some contexts; the court did not address them here.

Landowner Duty and Open and Obvious Dangers

A possessor of land is generally liable to invitees for known or obvious dangers only if the possessor should anticipate harm despite their obviousness (Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343, 343A; Carrender). Pennsylvania courts treat obviousness as usually a jury question, but a court may decide it when reasonable minds could not differ.

Pennsylvania Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

DeBar brought wrongful death and survival claims. Pennsylvania’s Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301, allows certain family members to recover for a death caused by another’s negligence, and the Survival Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, preserves the decedent’s own claims for the estate. The general limitations period for these personal injury claims is two years (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2)).

Workers’ Compensation and Other Issues

A worker’s employer generally has workers’ compensation exclusivity under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act (77 P.S. § 481), meaning claims against the direct employer are generally limited to compensation benefits. Third-party claims against others, such as property owners or hiring companies, can still be possible but face the doctrines discussed above. Pennsylvania’s “statutory employer” doctrine can also give some upstream contractors immunity in certain circumstances; the Third Circuit did not address it here, and its availability depends on the facts.

OSHA’s demolition standards (29 C.F.R. Part 1926, Subpart T) and workplace safety rules matter for safety enforcement, but the OSH Act does not itself create a private right of action for damages (29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4)).

Leave to Amend

Under Rule 15, courts generally allow amendment unless it would be futile or cause undue delay. Here, the Third Circuit noted that DeBar elected to stand on her complaint rather than replead, which is why the dismissals were with prejudice.

Can the Decision Be Reviewed Further?

The October 14 opinion affirmed the dismissal. In federal appeals, a party can ask the Third Circuit for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40) within the deadline, and can ask the U.S. Supreme Court for review by petition for a writ of certiorari, generally due 90 days after judgment or after rehearing is denied (Supreme Court Rule 13). Whether DeBar has done either is not established by the opinion. Check the docket for later activity.

Key Dates

Date	Event
2013	Coal generation ends at Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station
2022	Demolition of the plant begins
September 28, 2022	Cody Hatt suffers fatal injuries when a catwalk collapses
June 2024	DeBar files wrongful death and survival action in Pennsylvania state court
December 6, 2024	District court opinion in the case addressing the retained-control rule
February 2025	DeBar voluntarily dismisses claims against the EnergyHarbor defendants
April 29, 2025	District court grants motions to dismiss
April 20, 2026	Third Circuit hears oral argument
October 14, 2026	Third Circuit affirms dismissal in a precedential 2–1 opinion

What Should Families Do After a Fatal Workplace Accident?

General considerations, not advice for any specific situation:

• Identify every party involved. Who employed the worker, who owned or operated the site, and who hired whom?
• Preserve records. Incident reports, contracts, safety manuals, inspection records, photos and witness information can be important.
• Review the contracts. Who was responsible for methods, safety and site conditions?
• Consider workers’ compensation benefits. They are a separate system and may be available regardless of fault.
• Act quickly. Deadlines are short (for example, two years for Pennsylvania wrongful death and survival claims) and vary by state.
• Plead specific facts. The DeBar ruling shows that general statements of control may not be enough; specific facts about who directed how the work was done can matter.
• Talk to an attorney. Early advice about both benefits and third-party claims can matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Third Circuit dismiss Lisa DeBar’s lawsuit against FirstEnergy?

It affirmed the district court’s dismissal of her claims against FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Service and Allegheny Energy Supply in a 2–1 precedential opinion on October 14, 2026.

Why was the lawsuit dismissed?

The majority held that the complaint did not allege facts showing FirstEnergy Service retained the detailed control over the contractor’s work that Pennsylvania law requires, that FirstEnergy Corp. could not be vicariously liable without that, and that the danger of demolishing the long-shut power plant was open and obvious as to the owner, Allegheny Energy Supply.

Did the court find the demolition site was safe?

No. It decided whether the complaint stated claims on which relief could be granted. There was no trial.

Did the court say safety oversight can never create liability?

No. The majority said safety conduct of the kinds alleged here does not establish control as a matter of law under Beil. The dissent pointed out that Beil left open other circumstances. Each case depends on its facts.

Who decided the case?

Judges D. Michael Fisher (author), Stephanos Bibas and L. Felipe Restrepo. Judge Restrepo dissented.

Is there a settlement or claim form?

No. This is a court ruling on a motion to dismiss. There is no settlement fund or public claims process.

Does the ruling apply outside Pennsylvania?

The opinion applied Pennsylvania law and is binding precedent in the Third Circuit’s federal courts. Its effect in another state depends on that state’s law.

Does the ruling affect workers’ compensation?

No. Workers’ compensation is a separate system under state law and was not decided in this case.

Can DeBar appeal?

Further review, such as rehearing or a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, may be possible under the applicable rules. The opinion does not say whether it has been sought. Check the docket.

Where can I read the opinion?

The Third Circuit’s official opinion archive lists DeBar v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 25-2006.

Related Coverage on AllAboutLawyer.com

• Parents Sue OpenAI After ChatGPT Coached Teen Son to Commit Suicide: $300B Company Faces First Wrongful Death Case
• Nitrous Oxide Galaxy Gas Whip-It Injury Wrongful Death Lawsuit
• Six Flags X2 Christopher Hawley Wrongful Death Lawsuit

These cases involve different facts and legal theories and do not determine the outcome of the Hatt case.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. The ruling reflects the appellate court’s decision on the claims before it. It should not be treated as a determination that every workplace accident involving an independent contractor is legally non-actionable.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher who studies court records, settlement notices and official filings to explain legal developments in plain English. His work focuses on helping readers understand what a lawsuit or settlement means, who may be affected and where to find authoritative information.

Sources

1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Lisa DeBar v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 25-2006, precedential opinion filed October 14, 2026 (amended pursuant to Clerk’s order dated 7/14/25 per the opinion header): www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/252006p.pdf
2. U.S. Government Publishing Office, official record of the appellate opinion: govinfo.gov (USCOURTS-ca3-25-02006)
3. U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa., DeBar v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 2:24-cv-05164, including the memorandum opinions dated December 6, 2024 and April 29, 2025: law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2024cv05164/628001/14/
4. Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc., 11 A.3d 456 (Pa. 2011); Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983); Brletich v. U.S. Steel Corp., 285 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1971)
5. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)
6. Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343, 343A, 409, 414
7. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 15; Fed. R. App. P. 40; Supreme Court Rule 13
8. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5524(2), 8301, 8302; 77 P.S. § 481; 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4); 29 C.F.R. Part 1926, Subpart T