Louisiana Statutory Employer Defense Not Contingent on Valid Indemnity

Case: Blanks v. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Case No. 15-1094 (La. App. 3 Cir. 04/06/16); 2016 La. App. LEXIS 658

In Blanks v. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, the plaintiff, an employee of an industrial contractor, sought damages for work-related injuries sustained when he suffered a fall while working at an Entergy facility. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff’s employer and Entergy had in place a services contract pursuant to which Entergy was deemed a “statutory employer” for purposes of Louisiana’s Workers' Compensation Act.

Entergy moved for summary judgment based on the statutory employer defense of Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1061. The plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment, arguing that the trial court’s prior determination that the contract between Entergy and his employer violated Louisiana’s Construction Anti-Indemnity Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2780.1, prevented application of the statutory employer defense. The trial court granted Entergy’s motion for summary judgment, finding the anti-indemnity and workers’ compensation statutes to be separate and distinct. The trial court further denied the plaintiff’s cross motion and dismissed the case.

On appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that Entergy was prohibited from maintaining its statutory employer defense because a valid indemnity provision was a prerequisite to the indemnitee’s assertion of the statutory employer defense. Rather, the Court concluded the language of each statute addresses distinct relationships, reasoning: “Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2780.1 applies to construction contracts, advancing various requirements for general, contractual indemnification. . . . However, no language is included within La. R.S. 9:2780.1, or elsewhere, that would indicate that it obviates La. R.S. 23:1061’s separate statutory employer defense from tort liability in applicable cases. Had the legislature intended for La. R.S. 9:2780.1 to operate as an additional element to La. R.S. 23:1061, it could have included language specifically requiring such a change. It did not. Rather, and to the extent La. R.S. 9:2780.1 acknowledges workers’ compensation recovery, it does so by positively reinforcing a worker’s ability to recover those benefits.” In view of the distinct relationships addressed by La. R.S. 9:2780.1 and La. R.S. 23:1061, the Court found no error in the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

The Third Circuit’s ruling in Blanks offers a degree of clarity on the relationship between Louisiana’s Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute and the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation scheme: a defendant may assert a “statutory employer” defense regardless of the validity of an underlying contractual indemnity provision.