Longview Mill Disaster Raises Questions About Industrial Safety and Wrongful Death Claims in Washington 

On the morning of May 26, 2026, eleven workers were killed at the Nippon Dynawave Packaging pulp and paper mill in Longview. Shortly after 7 a.m., a 1.2-million-gallon storage tank failed, releasing roughly 900,000 gallons of white liquor, a caustic process chemical held at nearly 200 degrees. The liquid flooded a courtyard and surrounding buildings where crews had gathered for morning meetings. Three additional workers were seriously injured, while five others and a responding firefighter also sustained injuries.

The catastrophic failure ranks as Washington's deadliest workplace accident in nearly a century.

On August 28, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board released an update on its ongoing investigation. The CSB reported that an external inspection of the tank in July 2025, about ten months before the failure, found significant portions of the carbon-steel shell had thinned below safe minimums. According to the CSB, the inspection report stated the tank was “not fit for continued service” and warned of a “high likelihood/consequence of failure.” Continued external inspections in October 2025 and February 2026 confirmed that shell sections remained below required thickness. The CSB found that the tank was not internally inspected, repaired, or taken out of service, and that operating conditions were not reduced, before it came apart.

The CSB has not issued final conclusions and cannot fine a company or shut down a plant. But its technical findings can shape what investigators, regulators and litigants examine next.

The update has already reframed the public conversation. The question is no longer only what failed, it is what was known, when was it known, and what happened with that knowledge. That question sits at the center of most industrial wrongful death litigation in Washington.

What Washington law provides after a workplace death

When a worker is killed on the job in Washington, the family's first recourse is generally the state's industrial insurance system. Benefits are administered through the Department of Labor and Industries or a self-insured employer without anyone having to prove fault, and survivors are entitled to them as a matter of right. The trade-off is that industrial insurance is ordinarily the family's only claim against the employer.

Washington law, however, recognizes important exceptions and additional avenues for recovery.

The first applies when an employer acts with deliberate intention. A family must show the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. In a case involving an industrial facility, that proof may come from the company's own records. Inspection reports can establish what the company was told and when. Fitness-for-service determinations, ultrasonic thickness readings and remaining-life estimates can put a date on what management knew about a piece of equipment. Work orders, deferred-maintenance logs and capital expenditure requests can show what happened next: whether repairs were funded, deferred or repeatedly pushed back, or whether a temporary measure remained in place for years. Employee complaints, prior citations and near-miss reports can further show whether the company understood that its safety systems were failing. Together, these can all describe an organization that had settled on a level of risk a jury may weigh very differently than management did.

The second is a claim against someone other than the employer. Washington law preserves a family's right to sue any third party whose conduct contributed to the death, and in industrial cases this is where recovery more often comes from. At a facility like a pulp mill, the responsible parties can include outside inspection and testing contractors, engineering consultants, tank fabricators and installers, maintenance and construction contractors, equipment manufacturers, and chemical suppliers. When an outside firm examined a vessel and issued an opinion on whether it was safe to keep in service, that firm's work is squarely at issue.

Washington's wrongful death law was rewritten in 2019 to broaden who may recover damages. Parents and siblings can now bring claims including damages for the loss of love, companionship, care, and emotional support. A separate claim addresses what the person experienced before death, which in a chemical exposure case can be considerable.

What families should know

The months after an industrial disaster can be deceptively quiet for families. Behind the scenes, federal investigators, state workplace safety regulators and prosecutors may each be conducting separate investigations into what happened, whether violations occurred and whether criminal conduct may have occurred.

None is designed primarily to compensate a family, and families should not assume they must wait for those investigations to conclude before protecting their own interests.

Meanwhile, the evidence is changing. Equipment gets scrapped, repaired, or shipped off for testing. Digital maintenance systems overwrite records on ordinary retention schedules, not because anyone decided to destroy them. Employees who witness what happened take other jobs. Memories fade. Early preservation letters and independent access to the scene, equipment and physical evidence can make the difference between evidence that remains available two years later and evidence that does not.

This is the single most time-sensitive work that happens after a disaster, and it happens while families are still planning funerals.

Families are also under no obligation to accept an employer or an insurer's version of events. Statements taken in the first weeks, when survivors are exhausted and grieving, have a way of being used later. There is no requirement to give one on anyone else's timetable, and there is nothing improper about having someone review the account before it is signed.

It is also important to understand that the two forms of recovery are not mutually exclusive. Receiving industrial insurance benefits does not generally prevent a family from pursuing a claim against a third party whose conduct contributed to the death, although the state may have a right to share in certain recoveries. Accepting benefits does not necessarily close the door on other claims.

Finally, wrongful death and other civil claims are subject to deadlines, and those deadlines can begin running long before a family is ready to think about litigation. Speaking with an attorney early does not mean deciding to sue. It means preserving the evidence and keeping legal options available while the family decides what it wants to do.

Singleton Schreiber is a client-centered law firm, focusing on mass torts/multi-district litigation, fire litigation, personal injury/wrongful death, civil rights, environmental law, insurance bad faith, tribal law, and sex abuse/trafficking. Home to the nation’s largest fire litigation practice, the firm has represented over 30,000 wildfire and explosion victims caused by utilities, government negligence, railroads, and corporate misconduct. Its nationally recognized team has played a leading role in high-profile cases including the 2025 Eaton Fire, 2025 Moss Landing Battery Fire, 2025 Esparto Fireworks Explosion, 2023 Maui Fires, and is also actively litigating wildfire cases throughout New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Oregon, and Washington. They are also pursuing groundbreaking litigation against Tesla for misrepresenting their autopilot system, which recently resulted in a historic verdict. Additionally, the firm advocates for survivors of abuse involving hotel chains in California and Washington. With deep experience in complex claims, the firm is committed to helping individuals, families, and communities recover and rebuild.