206 So. 3d 232
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On April 3, 2013, courier driver Shaundrieka Williams (driving her brother’s car) changed lanes and struck Breanne Bouquet’s vehicle on a bridge, injuring Bouquet.
- Bouquets sued Williams, the vehicle owner, insurers, Hackbarth Delivery Services (the delivery company), and Subcontracting Concepts, Inc. (SCI), alleging vicarious liability and that Hackbarth’s insurer provided coverage.
- Bouquets settled with Williams, the vehicle owner, and one insurer; they amended to add Hackbarth, SCI, and Travelers (Hackbarth’s insurer).
- SCI had an Owner/Operator agreement with Williams stating she was not an employee, could accept/reject jobs, provided/maintained her vehicle, was paid per job, and the agreement was terminable; Hackbarth and SCI had a 2003 Assignment Agreement for brokered drivers.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Hackbarth and SCI and denied the Bouquets’ partial summary judgment on insurance coverage; this appeal challenges the summary judgment in favor of SCI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams was an employee or independent contractor of SCI | Bouquets: genuine factual disputes exist; Williams should be considered a leased worker/employee for vicarious liability and coverage | SCI: agreements and testimony show independent-contractor status (control minimal, paid per job, provides own vehicle, can reject jobs) | Reversed: summary judgment for SCI was improper; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Fonseca v. City Air of Louisiana, LLC, 196 So.3d 82 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and employee/independent-contractor analysis)
- Tower Credit, Inc. v. Carpenter, 825 So.2d 1125 (La. 2002) (employee/independent-contractor status is a factual determination)
- Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 262 So.2d 385 (La. 1972) (factors for distinguishing employees from independent contractors)
- Robicheaux v. Tate, 110 So.3d 134 (La. 2013) (Supreme Court reversed similar appellate affirmance and found genuine issues of material fact remain)
- Niemann v. Crosby Dev. Co., LLC, 92 So.3d 1039 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (appellants bear responsibility for completeness of appellate record)