196 So. 3d 82
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 19, 2012 plaintiff Ramón J. Fonseca, Sr. was allegedly attacked by technician Douglas D. Jones after Jones had been dispatched the prior day by Magic City Air of Louisiana, LLC (City Air) to service Fonseca’s air conditioner. Fonseca sued City Air, its managing member William A. Adams, Jones, and insurers for damages, negligent hiring/ supervision, fraud, and property damage.
- City Air and Adams repeatedly moved for summary judgment arguing Jones was an independent contractor (so no vicarious liability) and, alternatively, that Jones’s intentional acts were outside the scope of employment. Seneca (insurer) moved for summary judgment asserting no coverage for Jones under its CGL policy and that intentional acts were excluded.
- The trial court initially denied summary judgment motions in August 2014, parties continued discovery (including Jones’s deposition), and renewed motions were heard June 18, 2015.
- On June 25, 2015 the trial court found Jones was an independent contractor, granted City Air’s cross-motion and Seneca’s partial motion (no coverage), dismissed City Air with prejudice, and dismissed most claims against Adams except fraud; that judgment was certified final as to City Air.
- On appeal Fonseca argued (1) genuine issues of material fact existed about Jones’s employment status so summary judgment was improper, and (2) City Air remained potentially liable on other theories even if Jones were an independent contractor.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo and held the trial court improperly weighed credibility and resolved disputed factual issues (control/supervision). The court reversed the rulings that Jones was an independent contractor and that Seneca had no coverage; it affirmed denial of Fonseca’s partial summary judgments and partially affirmed/partially reversed the no-cause-of-action ruling as to Adams; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was an employee of City Air or an independent contractor | Fonseca: evidence is conflicting; right-of-control and supervision existed so a genuine fact issue requires trial | City Air/Adams: Jones was an independent contractor (1099, paid per job, no benefits), so no vicarious liability | Reversed trial court: disputed facts about right to control exist; summary judgment was improper on status |
| Whether City Air is vicariously liable for Jones’s alleged attack | Fonseca: if Jones was employee or City Air retained right of control, vicarious liability applies | City Air: no employee relationship, and acts were intentional and outside scope | Because status unresolved, vicarious liability cannot be decided on summary judgment; reversal of dismissal of City Air |
| Whether Seneca’s CGL policy covers claims involving Jones | Fonseca: coverage applies if Jones was employee/agent of insured | Seneca: no coverage for Jones because he was not an employee; intentional acts excluded | Reversed trial court’s no-coverage ruling because Jones’s status is a disputed factual issue |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given conflicting evidence | Fonseca: credibility conflicts and factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Defendants: evidence supports contractor status and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Appellate court: trial court improperly weighed credibility; genuine disputes exist; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Co., 262 So.2d 385 (La. 1972) (multi-factor test for employee vs. independent contractor focusing on degree of control)
- Triplette v. Exxon Corp., 554 So.2d 1361 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (general rule: employer not liable for independent contractor’s torts but exception if right to control exists)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La.) (court cannot resolve credibility disputes on summary judgment)
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 755 So.2d 226 (La.) (on summary judgment assume affiants credible; no weighing of evidence)
- Hulbert v. Democratic State Central Committee of Louisiana, 68 So.3d 667 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (totality of circumstances and right of control determine status)
- Tower Credit, Inc. v. Carpenter, 825 So.2d 1125 (La.) (distinction between employee and independent contractor is a factual determination)