Dustin Wright v. Excel Paralubes
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21247
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Excel Paralubes (Excel) and Conoco/ConocoPhillips (CP) formed a joint venture to build and operate a Louisiana plant; CP served as the operating/management partner.
- CP executed a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with contractor Wyatt; Exhibit G of the MSA expressly designated CP as the statutory employer of Wyatt’s employees under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (LWCA).
- Dustin Wright, a Wyatt employee, was injured while working under the MSA; he collected LWCA benefits from Wyatt and then sued Excel and CP in tort.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting statutory-employer immunity for CP and Excel; the district court granted the motion and dismissed Wright’s tort and gross-negligence claims.
- On appeal, the central question was whether Excel — a non-operating joint-venture partner not named in the MSA — qualified as a statutory employer under La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Excel (a non-signatory, non‑operating joint‑venturer) is a statutory employer under La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) | Wright: Excel cannot be statutory employer because it was not named or a signatory in the MSA | Defendants: CP’s contract with Wyatt, read with indemnity/Affiliate language and CP’s authority as operator, ‘‘recognizes’’ statutory‑employer status for Excel | Court: Excel is a statutory employer; the MSA’s Exhibit G and Affiliate/indemnity provisions support including Excel and create a rebuttable presumption Wright failed to overcome |
| Whether gross negligence claim avoids LWCA exclusivity (intentional‑act exception) | Wright: gross negligence (and later recharacterized intentional acts) allow tort recovery | Defendants: LWCA exclusive remedy bars tort claims absent intentional act; gross negligence insufficient | Court: Gross negligence is not the intentional‑act exception; Wright waived any intentional‑act allegation raised only in reply; remedy limited to workers’ compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Angelo v. United Scaffolding, Inc./X‑Serv., Inc., 40 So.3d 365 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (supports broad, liberal attribution of statutory‑employer status where operator’s contract designates statutory employer)
- Johnson v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 128 So.3d 483 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2013) (refuses rigid limit to contracting parties; common intent to create statutory employer status can extend to affiliates)
- Ernest v. Petroleum Serv. Corp., 868 So.2d 96 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (refused statutory‑employer status where contract made no designation)
- Perret v. Cytec Indus., Inc., 889 So.2d 1121 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2004) (gross negligence does not satisfy LWCA intentional‑act exception)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (gross negligence inadequate for intentional‑act exception)
- Weber v. State, 635 So.2d 188 (La. 1994) (party claiming immunity bears burden; immunity construed strictly)