By Eryk Michael Smith/KHT Staff. Cover image via Kevin Thom, who surveyed the damage hours after the explosions.
KAOHSIUNG — Reports that more than NT$1.13 billion connected to the 2014 Kaohsiung gas explosions remains tied up in court could leave the impression that victims have spent the past 12 years waiting to be compensated.
That is not what happened.
Families of those killed received a combination of charitable assistance and negotiated settlements. Thousands of people with injuries or property damage also accepted payments years ago through a program administered by the city.
The continuing litigation is largely about something else: whether the companies involved must reimburse money that was advanced to victims, how much of the cost should be borne by the city itself, and how recovered money should be returned to the disaster-donation account.
The explosions tore through parts of Cianjhen (前鎮區) and Lingya (苓雅區) on the night of July 31, 2014, killing 32 people and injuring 321.
Public donations poured in after the disaster. The city eventually received approximately NT$4.57 billion through about 260,000 donations, according to figures reported by the Central News Agency.
That money was used for several purposes, including immediate assistance, payments to bereaved families, medical care, long-term support for injured people, housing repairs, business assistance, and neighborhood recovery.
Those payments were charitable relief. They were not the same as damages awarded by a court.
How much did families of those killed receive?
In 2015, the city, LCY Chemical Corp., and China General Terminal & Distribution Corp. reached an agreement covering the families of all 32 people killed.
Under the agreement, LCY advanced a settlement of NT$12 million for each person who died. The parties agreed to divide that cost later according to their eventual legal responsibility.
By then, the victims’ association said each bereaved family had already received about NT$9 million from public donations. Contemporary reports therefore placed the combined amount received by each family at approximately NT$21 million.
In other words, the families were not still waiting for payment. The unresolved question was who should ultimately absorb the cost of part of what they had received.
What did injured residents and property owners receive?
Payments to people who were injured or lost homes, vehicles, business income, or other property were more complicated because the losses differed substantially from case to case.
The city created what it called a “claim-relief program.” Instead of requiring each victim to spend years suing the companies, the program offered an assessed payment from the disaster-donation account.
In exchange, the recipient transferred the corresponding legal claim to the city. The city could then pursue the companies and return any money recovered to the donation account.
By May 2018, the city said it had acquired 3,149 injury and property-damage claims and paid more than NT$630 million through the program. The final signing rate among applicants was reported at 99%.
That does not mean everyone received the same amount. Payments were calculated according to the documented injury or loss.
The city also negotiated separately for people classified as seriously injured. Of 65 people included in that group, 63 had signed settlement agreements by April 2018.
Separate support programs provided longer-term medical, rehabilitation and living assistance. City records show that seriously injured people holding a catastrophic-illness certificate could receive an NT$8 million rebuilding fund administered through a trust, with additional assistance available to those holding disability certificates.
These programs explain why no single figure accurately describes what “an injured victim” received.
What is state compensation?
Some victims declined the city’s claim-relief arrangement and pursued cases under Taiwan’s State Compensation Act.
The Chinese term, guojia peichang (國家賠償), is sometimes translated literally as “national compensation.” That can be misleading. It does not mean that the central government established another compensation fund.
State compensation is a legal claim against a government body for harm caused by an official act or by a defect in public infrastructure. In these cases, the defendant was the Kaohsiung City Government.
Several residents won such cases.
In one final ruling, the city was ordered to pay NT$250,730 for property damage. Another victim received NT$870,056 for building repairs, lost income, and emotional harm. A police officer injured while passing through the area received NT$207,102 for medical costs and psychological injury.
The amounts differed because courts considered each person’s proven losses rather than applying one standard payment.
A person who accepted money through the city’s claim-relief program generally transferred that particular claim to the city. That prevented the same loss from being collected twice. People who chose state-compensation litigation instead had to pursue their own cases through the courts.
What is the NT$1.13 billion case about?
After paying claim-relief money, the city effectively stepped into the victims’ place and sued LCY Chemical, China General Terminal & Distribution and CPC Corp. for reimbursement.
This is known as subrogation or an assignment of claims. It is similar to an insurer paying a policyholder first and then attempting to recover the money from whoever caused the damage.
The litigation was divided among several cases covering different categories of loss.
In appellate rulings issued in 2024, the Taiwan High Court’s Kaohsiung branch assigned approximately 80% of the responsibility to the city and the remaining 20% jointly to LCY and China General Terminal & Distribution. The court found CPC was not liable.
The court concluded that city personnel had failed to ensure that the propylene pipeline was moved when a drainage culvert was constructed around it decades earlier. The pipe was left suspended in the damp culvert, where it corroded until it ruptured.
The city disputes the 80% allocation. It argues that companies using the pipeline for more than two decades also had substantial inspection, maintenance, and management responsibilities.
The city, LCY, China General Terminal & Distribution, and CPC have all appealed to Taiwan’s highest level appellate court, the Supreme Court. As part of that process, there is first an attempt at mediation, and should mediation fail, the case will go before the judges to decide how to allocate liability.
During city council questioning on Sept. 8, Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) Councilor Chen Li-na (陳麗娜) quizzed city government officials about the publicly reported nine subrogation claims that total more than NT$1.13 billion.
She questioned why money advanced from the public-donation account had still not been recovered after 12 years, and demanded that city government agencies prepare for the possibility that the city will not recover most of this amount.
City Legal Affairs Bureau Director Wang Shih-fang (王世芳) said that an approximately NT$80 million payment that appeared in corporate filings of the companies involved did not represent those companies’ acceptance of the [finality of the] High Court decision. She explained this was more like a reconciliation among the parties with regard to funds previously advanced by the companies (see above).
What remains unpaid?
The short answer is not “the victims’ compensation.”
Most claimants who joined the city program received payments years ago. Families of those killed received charitable assistance and a separate NT$12 million settlement for each death. Seriously injured people received individually negotiated settlements and could qualify for additional long-term assistance.
What remains unresolved is the final accounting.
If the courts ultimately decide that the companies were responsible for part of the losses, the corresponding money should be returned to the donation account. If the city bears most of the legal responsibility, the question becomes whether city funds should replace donation money used to make the early payments.
That distinction is why the latest NT$1.13 billion figure is easily misunderstood. It represents claims still being fought over by the city and the companies, not NT$1.13 billion that victims are still waiting to receive.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the companies, the new mayor and city council that takes office after the election on November 28 will have to manage the impact on city finances.
Taiwan-based lawyer and political analyst Ross Feingold (方恩格) observed to Kaohsiung Times that “The length of time this case has taken to make its way through the litigation process is normal in Taiwan for a case that involves dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries, and that involves a dispute over whether corporates or local/central government agencies also might bear responsibility due to negligence in public works or regulatory oversight of the companies involved. Often, both the criminal and civil side of these matters can take this long.”
Feingold cited a recent, analogous example: On June 26, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a final ruling to allocate liability among the Ministry of Transportation and Communications Tourism Administration (formerly known as the Tourism Bureau) and the New Taipei City government for compensation paid to victims in the Formosa Fun Coast (八仙樂園) water park dust explosion that occurred on June 27, 2015, in which 15 died and approximately 500 were injured. However, a separate case involving the liability of the individuals and companies responsible for the tragedy is still in litigation, with a High Court (the intermediate appellate court) decision issued on July 28, 2026, most likely already appealed by some or all of the parties.
Those with a long memory might also recall the litigation in Taiwan against the successor companies to Radio Corporation of America (RCA) brought by former employees and their relatives due to the use of cancer-causing chemicals at an RCA factory in Taoyuan between 1970 and 1992. The most recent High Court decision was issued on January 15, 2025 and was most likely appealed to the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs and/or defendants.
Sources: United Daily News; Central News Agency; Public Television
