Lorita Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5328
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joseph Savoie worked at Avondale Shipyard from 1948–1996 on Navy/Coast Guard vessels; contracts required asbestos insulation through at least 1968.
- Savoie developed mesothelioma; he sued in state court alleging negligence and strict liability (survival and wrongful-death claims).
- Defendants (shipyard and successors) removed under the federal officer removal statute, plaintiffs moved to remand; the district court construed claims as negligence and remanded.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews remand orders under §1447(d) where federal officer removal is asserted and applies a liberal construction of §1442.
- The panel considered the three-part federal-officer removal inquiry: (1) defendant is a “person,” (2) a causal nexus between government-directed conduct and injury, and (3) a colorable federal defense.
- Court held negligence claims lacked the requisite causal nexus but survival strict-liability claims (pre-1996 Louisiana law) rested on mere use of asbestos pursuant to government contract specifications and therefore satisfied the causal-nexus requirement; remanded for the district court to decide whether defendants assert colorable federal defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shipyard is a “person” under §1442 | Not contested | Shipyard is a person | Shipyard is a person eligible to remove |
| Whether negligence claims satisfy causal nexus to federal direction | Negligence arises from shipyard’s failures; government didn’t control safety dept. | Navy’s supervision over construction and specs caused exposure | Negligence claims fail causal nexus; remand proper for those claims |
| Whether strict-liability survival claims (pre-1996 Louisiana law) satisfy causal nexus | Strict-liability still requires showing of defect but not reasonable-care defense; asbestos use was pursuant to government specs | Defendants argue government direction compelled asbestos use, creating nexus | Survival strict-liability claims satisfy causal nexus because government contract specifications required asbestos use |
| Whether removal is proper overall (colorable federal defenses) | Plaintiffs oppose removal; argue state law claims govern | Defendants assert federal-contractor (Boyle) and LHWCA preemption defenses | Remanded to district court to decide whether defendants’ federal defenses are colorable (only as to survival strict-liability claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (U.S. 2007) (statute §1442 should be construed broadly to protect federal officers and those acting under them)
- Bartel v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 805 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2015) (failure-to-warn/safety-precaution asbestos negligence claims did not satisfy causal-nexus for §1442 removal)
- Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) (strict-liability claims against contractors supplying government-mandated Agent Orange supported federal-officer removal where government compelled and supervised use)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (recognition and elements of the federal-contractor defense)
- Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 765 So. 2d 1002 (La. 2000) (elements of pre-1996 Louisiana strict liability: custody, defect/unreasonable risk, and cause-in-fact)