Moreno v. Entergy Corp.
105 So. 3d 40
| La. | 2012Background
- Entergy sought indemnity from contractors under the Overhead Power Line Safety Act (OPLSA) after a lineman’s injury when a scaffold contacted a high voltage line near a Walgreens center.
- District court granted summary judgment dismissing Entergy’s indemnity demands against Landaverde, Stewart, and Woodward; it found no OPLSA indemnity due to lack of notice and absence of a formal safety plan.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court previously remanded this issue for consideration of whether OPLSA can indemnify a utility for its own negligence, and the Court of Appeal initially held indemnity was unavailable for Entergy’s own fault.
- The current court clarifies the OPLSA’s structure: subsections A–C create a utility-rights framework, with subsection C preserving workers’ compensation exclusivity for employers; the Court holds the action may be indemnifiable, but remands for factual development.
- The record shows (i) scaffold proximity within ten feet of a line, (ii) Entergy’s notice to remove the scaffold, (iii) argument that OPLSA may allow indemnity even for utility fault, and (iv) unresolved issues of notice and whether the OPLSA threshold was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OPLSA permit indemnity for a utility’s own negligence? | Entergy argues ‘all damages’ in 45:144(A) covers utility damages including personal injury. | Contractors contend 45:144(A) does not indemnify a utility for its own negligence and exclusive remedy applies. | Indemnity for a utility’s own negligence is possible under OPLSA; case remanded for factual development. |
| How do subsections A–C of 45:144 interact to allow indemnity? | Entergy relies on broad ‘all damages’ language to support indemnity. | Contractors emphasize workers’ comp exclusivity and lack of explicit indemnity wording. | Subsection C does not bar recovery; the action described in A may apply to personal injuries with fault allocation under B. |
| Did notice and mutual arrangements negate a violation of OPLSA? | Entergy’s knowledge and involvement in safety steps do not negate a potential violation. | No violation if notice was provided and mutual arrangements were achieved. | Not decided on the record; remanded to determine if notice and mutual arrangements under 45:143 were met. |
| Is the voltage threshold a required element for summary judgment? | Entergy contends the line was a high voltage line subject to OPLSA. | Contractors challenge proving threshold at summary judgment stage. | Voltage threshold issue not decided at this stage; remand limited to legality of indemnity under OPLSA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreno v. Entergy Corp., 64 So.3d 761 (La. 2011) (supreme court remand and addressing indemnity for utility’s own fault)
- Moreno v. Entergy Corp., 49 So.3d 418 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (prematurity ruling vacated on appeal)
- Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 739 So.2d 183 (La. 1999) (indemnity concept explained)
- City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Assessors’ Retirement and Relief Fund, 986 So.2d 1 (La. 2007) (statutory construction principles; avoid surplusage)
- Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 967 So.2d 1137 (La. 2007) (statutory interpretation guidance)
- Jackson v. America’s Favorite Chicken Co., 778 So.2d 1257 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (workers’ compensation and third-party claims context)
- Berninger v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 582 So.2d 266 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991) (workers’ compensation immunity scope)