Federal Jury Finds For Employer in ADA Case

Louisiana’s anti-indemnity statute applicable to construction contracts, R.S. 9:2780.1, became law in 2011. The statute renders unenforceable any provision in, or collateral to, a construction contract that purports to indemnify or hold harmless a person from liability for its own negligence, or has the effect of doing so. Since the law's passage, few court decisions have interpreted its seemingly broad language and many questions remain as to the law's full impact.

The obvious intent of the anti-indemnity law is to avoid shifting liability away from a party at fault to another person. To this end, the language in the statute nullifies any agreement that has "the effect of holding the person at fault harmless.” But what about "limit of liability" provisions? Arguably, such provisions have the effect of holding harmless the party at fault. Does a limit of liability provision, otherwise valid and enforceable under Louisiana law, run afoul of the anti-indemnity statute? After all, those parties with superior bargaining power in construction contracts will seek to insulate themselves from liability to the fullest extent allowed by law, and will look for alternatives to the indemnity provisions that now expressly violate public policy.

One court recently held that R.S. 9:2780.1 does not prohibit a limit of liability provision in a construction contract. In Patriot Contracting, LLC v. Star Insurance Company, (E.D. La. 3/01/2018), the construction contract contained a provision that excluded liability of the architect for good faith decisions made during contract administration. The plaintiff/contractor alleged that the architect was negligent in its contract administration duties and caused it to suffer economic loss. The court dismissed the claim, rejecting the contractor’s argument that the provision violated the anti-indemnity law.

The Patriot court explained that the statute prohibits an indemnity agreement, i.e., where one party agrees to reimburse a second party for damages for which the second party becomes liable to a third party. However, the anti-indemnity law did not impact the provision that excluded the contractor’s right to recover from the architect. Thus, at at least according to one court, parties in construction contracts are still free to include limit of liability provisions.

Mary Anne Wolf is an engineer/attorney with a construction background who represents design professionals, contractors, and others in construction litigation. She also gives seminars on the subject. She enjoys travel, yoga, and encouraging her husband in his gardening and cooking endeavors.

In Louisiana, a “statutory employer” is entitled to protection from tort suit. With limited exceptions, the defense must be supported by a contractual provision declaring the defendant to be a statutory employer in a manner consistent with La. RS 23:1061. In Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corporation & Turner Industries Group, LLC, 2019-0309, 291 So. 3d 1087 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2019), the defendant-premises owner successfully asserted the defense, notwithstanding multiple issues with respect to the nature and terms of the agreement and an alleged lack of privity with the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

In Spears, the plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on the production floor at the Exxon plastics plant. Spears filed suit against multiple parties, including Exxon, alleging it failed to provide a safe premises. The plaintiff worked for Poly Trucking who operated at Exxon under a contract with Polly-America. Poly-America, LP and Exxon, in turn, were signatories to an agreement entitled "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" which stated that Polly-America was to:

"… provide pickup/delivery service… For all containers of Polyethylene scrap as well as Polyethylene's scrap recovery vacuum service for a quoted amount of one dollar.”

The "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" also contained a section expressly recognizing Exxon:

“… as the statutory employer of employees of Poly America and subcontractors while such employees are engaged in the contracted work.”

Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment based upon its status as Spears’ statutory employer. The Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed Exxon with prejudice. On appeal, Spears argued that the contract between Exxon and Poly-America presented multiple issues of fact and law which necessitated a reversal of the summary judgment. The issues identified by the plaintiff included the following:

1. The agreement upon which Exxon relied was a “Contract of Sale,” not a “Contract for Services;”
2. The agreement specified that the signatory contractor (Poly America) was an "Independent Contractor;"
3. The plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was neither a signatory to, nor specifically identified anywhere in the agreement; and,
4. Although the agreement designated Exxon as the statutory employer of the “employees of Poly America,” Exxon is not specifically designated as the statutory employer of the employees of Poly Trucking, the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal expressly rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments.

First, the Court pointed out that the law does not mandate that the contract containing the statutory employment language be of any particular type. As such, whether the contract was considered a contract of sale or for services was irrelevant.

Secondly, the Court rejected the claim that contractual language describing Exxon as an “independent contractor” required a rejection of the statutory defense. The Spears Court reasoned that nothing in La. RS 23:1061 prevents an independent contractor from entering into a written agreement whereby the principal to that contract is recognized as the statutory employer of the employees of the contractor and its subcontractors.

Finally, the Court rejected the claim the defense should be rejected because the plaintiff’s immediate employer was not a party to the contract. As discussed in Spears, the law provides that the contract establishing statutory employment can be with either the plaintiff’s immediate employer or the plaintiff’s statutory employer, and Poly America qualified as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under the “two contract” theory because the work that Poly America subcontracted to the plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was included within Poly America’s “STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER” contract with Exxon.

The Spears opinion highlights that the statutory defense should be maintained, even under unusual facts, when the requirements of La. RS 23:1061 are satisfied.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently considered the recoverability of indirect economic damages caused by negligent injury to property of others in MAW Enterprises, LLC, et al v. City of Marksville, et al. The Court found the defendant's duty did not include liability for damages resulting from negligent interference of a contract, and dismissed the case.

MAW involved the City of Marksville's denial of a liquor permit to the plaintiff's lessee. The rent was dependent in part upon the amount of gasoline sales.The plaintiff alleged that the City's improper denial of the liquor permit resulted in lower gasoline sales. Under these facts, the Court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the City because the damages claimed were not within the "scope of the duty."

The MAW Court extensively discussed its earlier decision in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058 (La. 1984). Citing to the analysis in PPG, the Court reasoned that holding a tortfeasor responsible for indirect economic damages caused by injury to property of others could improperly create liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.

The Court held that general tort duties duty did not encompass the plaintiff's injury. Additionally, after a lengthy analysis, the Court held that the duties under La. R.S. 26:71　et seq. (involving the issuance of liquor licenses) likewise did not encompass the plaintiff's damages because these duties were owed only to the person whose liquor license was denied or granted, namely the lessee.

One dissenting Justice found the majority's reliance on PPG improper because, unlike PPG, the plaintiff's damages were not caused by a "negligent injury to property resulting in physical damages." The majority's citation to PPG appears to indicate that PPG's reasoning may be applicable to cases involving both physical and non-physical damages.