Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 11, 2008; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff David Naiman appeals a judgment dismissing his lawsuit against Goldco Operating, L.L.C., which was granted following Goldco’s motion for summary judgment. Naiman, who suffered life-altering injuries from a forklift accident while working at a well site, alleges negligence on the part of Goldco for failing to prepare the site adequately and ensure a safe working environment. Goldco, identified as the correct defendant, contended that it owed no tort duty to Naiman, invoking the "two-contract" statutory employer defense. The trial court ruled in favor of Goldco, leading to Naiman's appeal.
In his appeal, Naiman argues that the trial court wrongly applied the statutory employer defense, thus erroneously granting summary judgment. The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, assessing whether genuine issues of material fact exist and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under Louisiana law, a motion for summary judgment must be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact based on the evidentiary materials presented. The burden initially lies with the movant to demonstrate the absence of factual support for essential elements of the opposing party's claim. If the opposing party fails to establish sufficient factual support to meet their evidentiary burden, the court may conclude there is no genuine issue of material fact.
To reverse the trial court's decision, the court must conduct a de novo review to determine if there is a genuine issue of fact that prevents summary judgment and whether Goldco can utilize the two-contract theory of defense against Naiman’s claim. Goldco asserts that its initial contract with working interest owners followed by a turnkey contract with Energy Drilling qualifies it as a principal under workers’ compensation statutes, thereby limiting Naiman's recourse to workers' compensation benefits.
According to La. R.S. 23:1032, an employee's rights to compensation for injuries are exclusive, preventing additional claims against employers or principals unless explicitly stated by statute. This exclusivity extends to claims arising under dual capacity or doctrine. The two-contract statutory employer defense, as derived from La. R.S. 23:1032 and La. R.S. 23:1061, allows for a principal to contract work that is part of its business or work that it is obligated to perform. The definition of "principal" under La. R.S. 23:1032(A)(2) includes any entity that engages in work related to its trade or business through contracts. La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(1) reinforces that when a principal contracts for work execution, it is granted exclusive remedy protections under R.S. 23:1032.
La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(2) establishes the 'two contract' statutory employer defense, which applies when the immediate employer's services are included in a contract between a principal and another entity. This defense involves a relationship among at least three parties: a general contractor, a subcontractor, and the subcontractor's employee. Goldsberry entered into agreements with working interest owners for various well sites, including Goldsberry. 1. A Model Turnkey Contract was executed between Goldsberry and Energy, where Energy assumed drilling operations at the Goldsberry. 1 site. Financial amendments to this contract later transferred operations from Goldsberry to Goldco. Frank Goldsberry, III, vice-president of both companies, provided an affidavit confirming this transition. On June 1, 2005, Goldco assumed operations of existing wells from Goldsberry and subsequently took over proposed wells, including Goldsberry. 1. Goldco contracted Energy Drilling for drilling operations. Prior to this contract, Goldco had already arranged for drilling test wells in Caddo Parish. Based on these facts and applicable law, Goldco is recognized as the principal, having contracted with Energy to fulfill obligations initially contracted to Goldco by the working interest owners. Thus, Goldco qualifies as a statutory employer under the 'two contract' defense, leading to the affirmation of the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Goldco. The costs of the appeal are assigned to the appellant.
