The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
ENDURANCE AMERICAN CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-0571
INSURANCE COMPANY
VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
CHEYENNE PARTNERS, LLC, MAGISTRATE JUDGE AYO
ET AL.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER1
Before the Court is Global Data Systems, Inc.’s (“Global Data”) Motion for
Summary Judgment (Record Document 635). Global Data “submits that there are no
genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of the workers[’] compensation
bar to the claims of the Berzas and Crisp cross-claimants against Global Data and those
claims are ripe for dismissal on summary judgment.” Record Document 635-1 at 4.
Global Data argues that Vaughn Crisp and Wade Berzas, two of the individuals on board
when the Piper N42CV crashed on December 28, 2019, were in the course and scope of
their employment with Global Data at the time of the crash, such that the exclusive remedy
of Crisp and Berzas against Global Data would be workers’ compensation. See generally
Record Document 635-1. Southern Lifestyle Development Company, LLC, SLD Aircraft,
LLC, Rodney L. Savoy, RRCO Aircraft, LLC, Parkside Properties, LLC, RR Company of
America, LLC, and Robert Daigle (collectively “Defendants”) filed a notice pursuant to the
Court’s Third Amended Case Management Order that they joined in the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Global Data. See Record Document 693. The notice stated:
Defendants join in all requests for the relief sought in this filing, and adopt it
in its entirety.
1 Amended to correct factual error.
Id.
The Berzas and Crisp cross-claimants opposed Global Data’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. See Record Document 655. The cross-claimants noted in their opposition
that the issue raised in Global Data’s motion was also the subject of their own Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment concerning Global Data’s affirmative defense of tort immunity.
See Record Document 653. That Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was recently
denied as moot because all claims against Global Data – including those of the Berzas
and Crisp cross-claimants – were dismissed. See Record Documents 700 & 703.
Here, the Court believes the instant Motion for Summary Judgment should likewise
be denied as moot. Again, all claims against Global Data – including those of the Berzas
and Crisp cross-claimants – have been dismissed. See Record Document 700. While it
is true that Defendants adopted the instant motion, “the Louisiana Workers’
Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for an employee against his
employer . . . where the terms of the statute are met: when the injury occurs within the
course and scope of employment. LSA-R.S. 23:1032.” Record Document 635-1 at 6
(emphasis added). As to the claims of the Berzas and Crisp cross-claimants, Defendants
do not fall within the scope of Section 1032 because they were not the employers of
Berzas or Crisp.
Alternatively, even if it was proper for this Court to consider the pending Motion for
Summary Judgment (Record Document 635) because of Defendants’ adoption of the
motion, Global Data did not present sufficient competent summary judgment evidence
that would establish its entitlement to tort immunity under the Louisiana Workers’
Compensation Act. Again, under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act, “the
employer is responsible for compensation benefits to an employee who is injured by an
accident which occurs in the course of the employment and arises out of the employment.”
Mundy v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 593 So. 2d 346, 349 (La. 1992), citing LSA-R.S.
23:1031. “Compensation benefits are the employee’s exclusive remedy against his
employer for such an injury.” Id., citing LSA-R.S. 23:1032. An employer seeking to avail
itself of tort immunity under the Act has the burden of proving entitlement to immunity.
See id. Moreover, “the determination of whether injury occurred in the course and scope
of employment is a mixed question of law and fact.” Dean v. Southmark Const., 2003-
1051 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So. 2d 112, 117. Here, the record contains numerous genuine
disputes of material fact relating to the determination of whether the plane crash occurred
in the course and scope of Berzas and Crisp’s employment and/or whether the plane
crash arose out of employment.2 Such issues are for the trier of fact to determine when
weighing the evidence.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Global Data’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Record
Document 635) be and is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 2nd day of March,
2023.
Kk rtwcreen [pln
2 Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 628
F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2010). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.