Preston v. S. Univ. Through the Bd. of Supervisors of S. Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll.

• Decision Date: 13 July 2021
• Docket Number: 2020 CA 0035
• Citation: 328 So.3d 1194
• Parties: Brendon PRESTON v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY THROUGH the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

328 So.3d 1194

Brendon PRESTON

v.SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY THROUGH the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE

2020 CA 0035

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: JULY 13, 2021

James M. Williams, Erin B. Rigsby, Metairie, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant, Brendon Preston

Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Peter J. Giarrusso, Assistant Attorney General, Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Wm. David Coffey, Amber Mandina Babin, Assistant Attorneys General, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee, State of Louisiana through the Board of Supervisors for Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, PENZATO, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ.

WOLFE, J.

Brendon Preston appeals a summary judgment dismissing his tort claims against the State of Louisiana through the Board of Supervisors for Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (Southern), as well as the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 13, 2009, Preston was allegedly injured when he fell into a large hole in the ground on Southern's campus. Preston was employed by Benbrook Contracting, LLC (Benbrook), which was contracted by Southern to perform debris cleanup following Hurricane Gustav. Preston claimed that as he was performing his job duties, he stepped aside to allow a cut tree branch to fall, at which time he fell into the hole. As a result of the accident, Preston sought and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits from Benbrook. In January of 2010, Preston filed the instant suit against Southern,¹ seeking damages for his injuries based in tort.

Southern filed a motion for summary judgment in 2016, urging it was Preston's statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Louisiana's Workers’ Compensation Act. See La. R.S. 23:1032A(1)(a) and 23:1061A. After a hearing, the trial court agreed and orally granted the motion for summary judgment. A final judgment granting the motion and dismissing Preston's claims was signed on May 24, 2019.² Preston filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied on October 18, 2019. Preston now appeals both the summary judgment and the denial of his motion for new trial.

DISCUSSION

On appeal Preston urges three assignments of error, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial when the summary judgment was granted before he had an adequate opportunity for discovery; without Southern proving the work being performed was part of Southern's trade, business, or occupation; and where genuine issues of fact remained as to whether his injuries were caused by Southern's negligence. Although his assignments of error are framed as challenging the denial of his motion for new trial, Preston's arguments contest the summary judgment, which he has also appealed.³

After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966A(3). The summary judgment procedure is favored and shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966A(2). The court may consider only those documents filed in support of or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and shall consider any documents to which no objection is made. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966D(2). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that governs the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. In re Succession of Beard, 2013-1717 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/6/14), 147 So.3d 753, 759-60.

If the mover will bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue before the court on the motion, the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact remains with the mover. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966D(1); Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., 2019-0309 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/17/19), 291 So.3d 1087, 1090. When a motion is made and properly supported, an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading; his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided by law, must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be rendered against him. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 967B.

A fact is material if it potentially ensures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. Larson v. XYZ Insurance Company , 2016-0745 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So.3d 412, 416. A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate. Hines v. Garrett, 2004-0806 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 765-66 (per curiam ); Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital , Inc. , 93-2512 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751. Because the applicable substantive law determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material must be viewed in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Bryant v. Premium Food Concepts, Inc. , 2016-0770 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/26/17), 220 So.3d 79, 82, writ denied, 2017-0873 (La. 9/29/17), 227 So.3d 288.

Under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act ("the Act"), an employer is liable for compensation benefits to an employee who is injured as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. La. R.S. 23:1031. Generally, the rights and remedies under the Act provide an employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for such injury. La. R.S. 23:1032. Louisiana adopted a broad version of the statutory employer doctrine; thus, the Act expressly extends the employer's compensation obligation and its corresponding tort immunity to a "principal," which is also referred to as a "statutory employer." See Allen v. State ex rel. Ernest N. Morial-New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority , 2002-1072 (La. 4/9/03), 842 So.2d 373, 378 ; Spears, 291 So.3d at 1091.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1061A(1) pertinently provides:

[W]hen any "principal" ... undertakes to execute any work, which is a part of his trade, business, or occupation and contracts with any person, in this Section referred to as a "contractor", for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the principal, the principal, as a statutory employer, shall be granted the exclusive remedy protections of R.S. 23:1032 [.]

Thus, a statutory employer is liable to pay any employee employed in the execution of the work any compensation due under the Act and, in turn, is entitled to statutory immunity. La. R.S. 23:1061A(l).

The Act extends the employer's compensation obligation and corresponding tort immunity to a statutory employer, in two instances: (1) when a party undertakes to carry out any work that is a part of its trade, business, or occupation by means of a contract with another party; or (2) when a party contracts to perform work and sub-lets any portion of the work to another party (the "two contract" instance). See La. R.S. 23:1032A(1)-(2) and 23:1061 A(l)-(2); Allen , 842 So.2d at 378. Except in the two-contract instance, which is not at issue herein, "a statutory employer relationship shall not exist... unless there is a written contract between the principal and a contractor ... which recognizes the principal as a statutory employer." La. R.S. 23:1061A(3). When there is written contractual recognition of the relationship, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption of a statutory employer relationship between the principal and the contractor's employees, whether direct or statutory employees." La. R.S. 23:1061A(3); see also Mitchell v. Southern Scrap Recycling, L.L.C. , 2011-2201 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/8/12), 93 So.3d 754, 758, writ denied, 2012-1502 (La. 10/12/12), 99 So.3d 47. The presumption may be overcome only by showing the work is not an integral part of or essential to the ability of the principal to generate its goods, products, or services. La. R.S. 23:1061A(3).

An employer seeking to avail itself of tort immunity bears the burden of proving its entitlement to immunity. Spears, 291 So.3d at 1092. Further, immunity statutes are strictly construed against the party claiming immunity. Mitchell, 93 So.3d at 758. The ultimate determination of whether a principal is a statutory employer entitled to immunity is a question of law for the court to decide. Patterson v. Raceland Equipment Company, LLC, 2017-0703 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/18/18), ––– So.3d ––––, –––– (2018 WL 1870156, *3), writ denied, 2018-1018 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 799.

Southern contends that it was Preston's statutory employer based on its written contract with Benbrook in the form of a purchase order with addenda.⁴ The contract obligated Benbrook to provide emergency tree services and remove debris from Southern's campus. The contract required that Benbrook obtain and provide proof of certain insurance coverage, specifically, "Workers’ Compensation—Statutory —in compliance with the Compensation law of the State[.]" (Emphasis added.) In connection therewith, the contract mandated that Southern be named as an additional insured on all liability insurance policies.

A contract must be construed as a whole, with each provision in the contract interpreted in light of the other provisions. See La. Civ. Code art. 2050. Further, a contractual provision susceptible of different meanings must be interpreted with a meaning that renders it effective and not with one that renders it ineffective. La. Civ. Code art. 2049.

After careful review of the entire contract, which required Benbrook to carry...