111 So. 3d 564
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- McWilliams, a Texas-domiciled petroleum inspector, alleges acute promyelocytic leukemia from benzene exposure while working on Defendants’ vessels over 27 years, including five years on their premises.
- Suit was filed in July 2009 under maritime law/Jones Act; Defendants are not Louisiana domiciliaries and all relevant work occurred in Texas.
- Discovery misconduct by Defendants included nonresponsive 1442 depositions and mass document dumps, causing repeated delays and prejudice to McWilliams.
- Trial court sanctioned Defendants under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1471, striking all defenses and leaving only damages for jury determination.
- Appeals followed; the intermediate court and Louisiana Supreme Court denied supervisory relief, upholding the sanctions.
- Jury awarded $5.5 million in actual damages and $12 million in punitive damages; post-trial rulings involve application of Texas law and various damages adjustments on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under Article 1471 were proper | McWilliams argues sanctions were proper given willful discovery violations by ExxonMobil defendants. | ExxonMobil contends sanctions were an abuse of discretion and overly drastic. | Sanctions affirmed; defenses struck as proper. |
| Whether Texas law should govern non-maritime issues | Texas had more significant relationship; Texas law should apply to non-maritime issues. | Louisiana law should govern all issues since suit filed in Louisiana. | Judgment reversed on this point; Texas law applied where appropriate. |
| Whether evidentiary rulings post-sanctions were correct | Plaintiff contends evidentiary rulings supported liability/causation. | Defendants challenge evidentiary rulings as improperly effecting liability. | Evidence issues reviewed; liability established by sanctions; some life-expectancy evidence properly admitted; some correction warranted. |
| Whether punitive damages violate due process | Punitive award supported by egregious conduct and due process protections are met. | Award exceeds permissible limits or is procedurally flawed. | Punitive damages affirmed; due process not violated under the facts. |
| Whether punitive damages cap under maritime law was exceeded | Exxon/Baker framework does not universally cap punitive at 1:1 in all maritime cases. | Exxon requires a 1:1 ratio cap in all similar contexts. | No general 1:1 cap; appellate analysis upholds the jury award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horton v. McCary, 635 So.2d 199 (La. 1994) (discovery sanctions; abuse of discretion standard)
- MTU of North America, Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc., 475 So.2d 1063 (La. 1985) (distinction between discovery sanctions and disobedience of orders)
- Batson v. Neal Spelce Associates, Inc., 765 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1985) (default judgment factors for sanctions)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Southern Union Co., Inc., 985 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1993) (corporate designation; corporate representative deposition)
- Simon v. Smith, 470 So.2d 941 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (life expectancy testimony limitations)
- Haygood v. De Escabado, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011) (amount actually paid vs billed; collateral source rule; Texas limits on medical damages)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (U.S. 2008) (1:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio; contextual limits by Exxon)
- Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 272 P.3d 825 (Wash. 2012) (limits on Exxon-type reasoning; punitive cap context)
- Mihalopoulos v. Westwind Africa Line Ltd., 511 So.2d 771 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1987) (maritime prejudice; prejudice against future claims)