136 So. 3d 283
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Heckmann Water Resources Corp. hired HDR Constructors to design and replace portions of Heckmann's pipeline under a general contract.
- HDR subcontracted part of the work to Wicker Construction Inc. with warranties and a one-year defect repair obligation.
- In November 2011 a leak occurred; HDR relied on Wicker to perform repairs; Sibert and two Wicker colleagues cut the pipe and heated it with a torch, despite safety concerns.
- Sibert was seriously injured when gases ignited; he filed a tort suit in June 2012 against National Oilwell Varco, its rep Petty, Heckmann, and HDR.
- HDR moved for summary judgment asserting statutory-employer immunity under La. R.S. 23:1032 A(2) and 23:1061 A(2); the district court granted summary judgment in HDR's favor in April 2013.
- Sibert appealed, and later sought to add HDR Constructors and HDR Engineering as defendants with expanded intentional-tort allegations; the district court had dismissed HDR Contractors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional tort exception to immunity | Sibert argues the alleged intentional acts negate immunity. | HDR contends allegations show only negligent or reckless conduct, not intentional wrongdoing. | No genuine issue; intentional-tort claims fail to negate immunity. |
| Statutory employment status under two-contract theory | Sibert contends two-contract theory cannot support immunity given scope of work. | HDR maintains general-contract/subcontract relationship satisfies statutory-employer status. | HDR is a statutory employer under both RS 23:1061 A(2) and A(1); immunity applies. |
| Adequacy of discovery/time for continuance | Sibert asserts denial of continuance deprived him of adequate discovery to oppose summary judgment. | HDR contends four-month window was adequate given limited contract documents involved. | District court's denial of continuance affirmed; four-month interval adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. Village Ins. Co., 548 So.2d 106 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1989) (general-contractor immunity supported by two-contract theory)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., Inc., 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (intentional acts required for exclusion; substantial-certainty standard)
- Batiste v. Bayou Steel Corp., 45 So.3d 167 (La. 2010) (intentional wrongdoing requires substantial certainty; mere knowledge insufficient)
- Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 618 So.2d 1140 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993) (reckless/wanton conduct not enough for intentional act)
- Smith v. Tanner Heavy Equip. Co., 790 So.2d 615 (La. 2001) (intentional act standard discussed in summary-judgment context)