History
  • No items yet
midpage
917 F.3d 847
5th Cir.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Two Mexican citizens working on H arang’s sugarcane farm were severely injured when a Harang employee ran over the cart they were on; Harang conceded fault and total damages were stipulated at $2.5 million.
  • Plaintiffs were recruited, hired, paid weekly, and supervised by Lowry Farms, Inc.; Lowry obtained visas, provided housing/transportation, paid wages, and carried workers’ compensation insurance.
  • Harang contracted with Lowry on a per-acre basis, provided tractors/carts/equipment, assigned fields, and completed time sheets, but did not hire, fire, directly supervise, or set hours for individual planters.
  • Farm Bureau (Harang’s insurer) argued Harang had statutory immunity under Louisiana workers’ compensation law (or that the plaintiffs were Harang’s employees), and also relied on a general-liability exclusion if plaintiffs were Harang employees.
  • The district court held plaintiffs were Lowry’s employees (not Harang’s), denied Harang immunity, and entered judgment for plaintiffs; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Does La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1021(7) (manual-labor independent-contractor exception) make a principal immune to tort suits by employees of the independent contractor? Plaintiffs: §1021(7) covers only the independent contractor, not its employees; Harang lacks immunity. Farm Bureau: When a contractor is covered under §1021(7), its employees should also be treated as covered, giving the principal immunity. Held: §1021(7) applies to independent contractors themselves, not to their employees; Harang not immune under §1021(7).
Can plaintiffs be deemed Harang employees under the ‘‘presumed employee’’ statute (§ 23:1044)? Plaintiffs: No express or implied employment agreement with Harang; presumption overcome. Farm Bureau: Plaintiffs rendered services for Harang and thus are presumed employees. Held: Presumption rebutted—no express/implied agreement with Harang; plaintiffs are not Harang employees.
Are plaintiffs "borrowed employees" (special employer) of Harang, triggering joint liability and immunity? Plaintiffs: Lowry retained control; factors weigh against borrowed-servant status. Farm Bureau: Plaintiffs worked on Harang’s operations with Harang’s equipment, supporting borrowed-employee status. Held: Applying the borrowed-servant multi-factor test, Lowry controlled planters; plaintiffs not Harang’s borrowed employees.
Does finding (or not) of employment status affect insurer coverage (Harang’s liability policy exclusion)? Plaintiffs: They were Lowry employees, so Harang’s insurer cannot invoke employee-exclusion for Harang’s insured. Farm Bureau: If plaintiffs are Harang employees, the general-liability policy excludes coverage. Held: Plaintiffs were Lowry’s employees, not Harang’s; Harang’s insurer cannot rely on an employee exclusion or workers’ compensation immunity.

Key Cases Cited

  • Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
  • Gulf & Miss. River Transp. Co. v. BP Oil Pipeline Co., 730 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2013) (framework for making an Erie guess about state law)
  • Lushute v. Diesi, 354 So. 2d 179 (La. 1977) (manual-labor contractor exception applies to contractor "in carrying out the terms of his contract")
  • Lumar v. Zappe Endeavors, L.L.C., 946 So. 2d 188 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2006) (intermediate court decision treating contractor limitations as applying to contractor’s employees)
  • Daigle v. McGee Backhoe & Dozer Serv., 16 So. 3d 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (intermediate court declined to apply Lumar’s reasoning to allow contractor’s employee to recover under principal via §1021(7))
  • Champagne v. Am. Alt. Ins. Corp., 112 So. 3d 179 (La. 2013) (presumption in favor of preserving tort remedies unless statute clearly limits them)
  • Capps v. N.L. Baroid-NL Indus., Inc., 784 F.2d 615 (5th Cir. 1986) (discussion of legal nature of borrowed-servant determination and fact-intensive factor analysis)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date Published: Mar 7, 2019
Citations: 917 F.3d 847; 18-30388
Docket Number: 18-30388
Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.
Log In
    Jorge-Chavelas v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 847