Champagne v. American Alternative Insurance Corp., 112 So. 3d 179

Plaintiff Rodney Champagne was a volunteer firefighter with Duson 12 Volunteer Fire Department and was injured while testing a hose on Engine No. 46 with fellow volunteer Daniel Lavergne.
Champagne and his wife sued Lavergne, AAIC, and others for personal injury in tort arising from the incident.
Lavergne and AAIC moved for summary judgment, arguing immunity under La. R.S. 23:1036 and 23:1032 shields co-volunteers from tort liability.
The trial court denied the motion, holding the statute limits remedies to workers’ compensation against the fire company and does not extend to tort claims against a fellow volunteer.
The court of appeal denied supervisory relief, adopting the trial court’s interpretation and recognizing potential legislative remedies.
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to determine whether 23:1036 immunizes a volunteer from tort claims against a fellow volunteer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 23:1036(A) immunize fellow volunteers from tort suits?	Champagne argues immunity only applies against the fire company, not fellow volunteers.	Lavergne and AAIC contend 23:1036(A) incorporates 23:1032(A)(1)(a) and thus immunizes co-volunteers.	No; 23:1036(A) does not confer immunity to fellow volunteers.
Is the reference to 23:1032 in 23:1036(A) superfluous or meaningful for co-volunteer immunity?	Champagne asserts the phrase is not telegraphed to extend immunity to co-volunteers.	Lavergne and AAIC claim the reference broadens immunity to include co-employees/volunteers.	Meaningfully construes 23:1032 to define immunity against the fire company only, not co-volunteers.
Does statutory interpretation require extending tort immunity to co-volunteers despite the plain text?	Champagne argues for broader immunity based on legislative history and purpose of encouraging volunteering.	Lavergne and AAIC urge strict adherence to the text to avoid absurd results and preserve tort rights.	No; the statute is clear and unambiguous; immunity does not extend to fellow volunteers.

Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885 (La. 1993) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent guiding application of statutes)
Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 646 So.2d 905 (La. 1994) (immunity and presumption against changing tort rights absent explicit language)
Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 634 So.2d 341 (La. 1994) (preservation of delictual rights unless statute expressly limits them)
Genusa v. Pointe Coupee Volunteer Fire Dist. No. 4, 644 So.2d 851 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1994) (volunteer status and employer-employee relation for workers’ compensation)
First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Beckwith Mach. Co., 650 So.2d 1148 (La. 1995) (statutory interpretation to avoid absurd results and give effect to all parts)