LaShip, L.L.C. v. Hayward Baker, Incorporat
680 F. App'x 317
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- LaShip built a shipbuilding facility in Houma; HBI contracted to install subterranean soil-mix columns per design/specifications prepared by LSE/Holon and soil borings by BCD.
- Contract required daily “wet grab” sampling and unconfined compressive strength (UCS) testing; Phase I met 90% ≥100 psi and Phases II/III met required thresholds.
- Some columns showed spiraling and cave-ins; LaShip moved the footprint and abandoned 156 six-foot columns, switching to eight-foot columns.
- LaShip sued HBI in state court (removed to federal court) for breach of contract, negligence, and failure to warn; HBI counterclaimed for unpaid work on the abandoned 156 columns.
- District court (bench trial) awarded LaShip a $375,000 mobilization refund but otherwise ruled for HBI, found TPC’s tort claims prescribed, and awarded HBI payment for extra quantities; LaShip and TPC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — did HBI fail to perform? | LaShip: HBI’s overall obligation was proper installation of reliable columns; meeting sample thresholds did not cure defective installation. | HBI: Contract’s Performance Specifications governed; HBI met those specs (sample UCS results) and thus performed. | Court: HBI met contract terms as written; LaShip failed to identify a specific contractual breach. |
| Negligent failure to warn (affirmative tort duty) | LaShip: HBI’s geotechnical expertise gave it a duty to warn of dangerous design/construction issues. | HBI: Statutory immunity under La. R.S. 9:2771; it built to provided plans/specs and did not design them. | Court: HBI immune under La. R.S. 9:2771; no showing HBI had justifiable reason to believe plans would create a hazardous condition. |
| Counterclaim for unpaid work on abandoned 156 columns | LaShip: Columns were defective/abandoned and not compensable. | HBI: Per Revised Schedule of Prices, final payment is on actual quantities; HBI performed extra mixing and was not paid. | Court: HBI entitled to payment for additional mixed quantities; affirmed. |
| TPC’s delictual claims and expert evidence | TPC: Contra non valentem tolls prescription; its experts (Waxse) should have been allowed to testify. | HBI: TPC had constructive knowledge and suit is prescribed; Waxse’s opinions were litigation-generated and required a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report. | Court: TPC’s claims prescribed — contra non valentem inapplicable; district court did not abuse discretion excluding Waxse for lack of report. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steele v. Leasing Enterprises, Ltd., 826 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for bench-trial findings)
- Bd. of Trs. New Orleans Emp’rs Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Co., 529 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. 2008) (clarifying clear-error review for factual findings)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So. 3d 234 (La. 2010) (analysis of contra non valentem and when prescriptive period begins)
- Bunge Corp. v. GATX Corp., 557 So. 2d 1376 (La. 1990) (contractor’s superior knowledge can create a duty to warn — distinguished here)
- Oxley v. Sabine River Auth., 663 So. 2d 497 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (contractor cannot rely on plan/spec immunity if it had justifiable reason to believe adherence would create a hazardous condition)