102 So. 3d 842
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sasser, a parish building inspector, was injured when temporary steps detached while entering a home under construction at 1320 Agatha Road, Sunshine, LA.
- Plaintiffs/sasser couple filed suit against owner Wintz, general contractor KRC, ASIC (KRC's insurer), framing subcontractor Blanchard, and Canal Indemnity (Blanchard's insurer); Iberville Parish Council intervened for workers’ comp reimbursement.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Wintz, KRC, and ASIC, dismissing those claims; plaintiffs/intervenor sought summary judgment on operational control, independent contractor status, and insurance coverage issues.
- Court applied Louisiana summary judgment standards, reviewing de novo and requiring no genuine issues of material fact for movers to prevail.
- Court held Wintz did not exercise operational control over Blanchard; Blanchard was an independent contractor; ASIC policy did not provide coverage due to lack of indemnity/adequate insurance, and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational control by owner over contractor | Sasser/Intervenor contend Wintz exercised operational control. | Wintz did not supervise or control Blanchard’s work. | No genuine issue; Wintz lacked operational control. |
| Independent contractor vs. employee liability | If Blanchard was an employee, KRC could be liable. | Blanchard was an independent contractor; KRC not liable for his acts. | KRC not liable; Blanchard independent contractor. |
| Policy coverage under ASIC endorsement | Indemnity/insurance requirements should be satisfied to trigger coverage. | Conditions not met; no coverage under policy. | ASIC coverage not triggered; summary judgment in favor of ASIC. |
| Impact of verbal contracts and control evidence | Plaintiffs relied on Chatelain’s statements and oral contract indicators to show control. | Direct evidence showed lack of control; verbal contracts do not prove control. | Evidence insufficient to create a genuine issue of control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. City of Plaquemine, 818 So.2d 898 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/10/02) (operational control in construction projects)
- Alexander v. Lowes Companies, 701 So.2d 239 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/19/97) (employer liability limits for independent contractors)
- Roca v. Security National Properties—Louisiana Limited Partnership, 102 So.3d 778 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/10/12) (factors to determine independent contractor relationships)
- Villaronga v. Gelpi Partnership Number 3, 536 So.2d 1307 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988) (independent contractor v. employee; supervision risk)
- Parmer v. Suse, 657 So.2d 666 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/23/95) (control/supervision as key to employment analysis)
- Evins v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 907 So.2d 733 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/11/05) (coverage determination; insurer’s burden)
- McQuirter v. Rotolo, 77 So.3d 76 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/14/11) (enforce policy terms; indemnity/insurer obligations)
- McDonald v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, 70 So.3d 1086 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/27/11) (policy obligations; enforceability of limitations)
- Robles v. ExxonMobile, 844 So.2d 339 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/28/03) (summary judgment standard and burden)