Quarles v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.

Filing 73

ORDER AND REASONS granting 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHRISTIAN QUARLES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-2038

HELMERICH & PAYNE INTERNATIONAL
DRILLING CO. ET AL

SECTION: “H”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh’s (“National Union”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40).
For the following reasons, this Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries while working
on the Auger TLP, a tension leg platform in the Gulf of Mexico on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). Plaintiff claims that his injuries are the result of
negligence of Shell Oil Company, Shell Exploration & Production Company,
Shell Offshore, Inc. and Helmerich & Payne Drilling Company (H&P).

1

On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff amended his complaint to add a direct action
claim against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh
(“National Union”), H&P’s insurer. National Union now asks the Court to
dismiss this claim, averring that the Louisiana Direct Action Statute does not
apply to this matter. Plaintiff opposes.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”1 A genuine issue
of fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.”2
In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment,
the Court views facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws
all reasonable inferences in his favor.3 “If the moving party meets the initial
burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden
shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts
showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.”4 Summary judgment is
appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.”5 “In response to a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must
identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the manner in which that
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (2012).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
3 Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1997).
4 Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1462 (5th Cir. 1995).
5 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
1
2

2

evidence supports that party’s claim, and such evidence must be sufficient to
sustain a finding in favor of the non-movant on all issues as to which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial.”6 “We do not . . . in the absence
of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the
necessary facts.”7

Additionally, “[t]he mere argued existence of a factual

dispute will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.”8
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In this Motion, National Union argues that Plaintiff’s claim must be
dismissed because the Louisiana Direct Action Statute is inapplicable and
there exists no independent cause of action against it. As a threshold matter,
National Union does not dispute that Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act9
(“OCSLA”) extends the laws of Louisiana to fixed platforms located in the OCS
under certain circumstances.10 Likewise, Defendant does not dispute that
Louisiana law applies as surrogate federal law in this matter. Defendant’s sole
argument is that the Louisiana Direct Action Statute11 by its terms is
inapplicable.
Defendant argues that the Louisiana Direct Action Statute does not
allow a direct action against the insurer in this case. “Under Louisiana law, a
right of direct action may be brought against an insurer in only three limited

John v. Deep E. Tex. Reg. Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 301 (5th
Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
7 Badon v. R J R Nabisco, Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 394 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)).
8 Boudreaux v. Banctec, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (E.D. La. 2005).
9 43 U.S.C. 1333.
10 Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. PLT Eng'g, Inc., 895 F.2d 1043, 1047 (5th Cir.
1990); See also 43 U.S.C. 1333.
11 La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1269.
6

3

instances: (1) if the accident occurred in Louisiana; (2) if the policy was written
in Louisiana; or (3) if the policy was delivered in Louisiana.”12 It is undisputed
that the policy was neither written nor delivered in Louisiana. Accordingly,
the Direct Action Statute may only be applied if the platform at issue is
considered “in Louisiana.”
In Joyner v. Ensco Offshore Co., the district court found that, under the
plain language of the Direct Action Statute, an accident on an offshore oil
platform could not be considered to have occurred “in Louisiana.”13 In Joyner,
as in this case, state law was applied as surrogate federal law under OCSLA.14
There, the court first considered whether the Direct Action Statute could be
incorporated through OCSLA.15 Answering that question in the affirmative,
the court then looked to the plain language of the Direct Action Statute to
determine its applicability.16 In reliance on the ruling of the Louisiana Third
Circuit Court of Appeals in Harper v. Falrig Offshore17 and the ruling of the
Fifth Circuit in Guess v. Read,18 the court held that the subject accident could
not be found to have occurred “in Louisiana” for purposes of the Direct Action
Statute.19 This finding is supported by the plain language of the Louisiana
statute itself.

The words of the statute are clear and unambiguous—an

incident must occur “in Louisiana” for the statue to apply.20
Ostrowiecki v. Aggressor Fleet, Ltd., No. 07-6598, 2008 WL 2185326, at *4 (E.D. La.
May 20, 2008) (quoting Landry v. Travelers Indem. Co., 890 F.2d 770, 772 (5th Cir.1989));
See also Louisiana Direct Action Statute, La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1269.
13 No. 99-3754, 2001 WL 333114, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2001) (Duval, J.).
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 776 So.2d 620 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2000).
18 290 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1961).
19 Joyner, 2001 WL 333114, at *2.
20 Such a view is further supported by the venue provision of the statute, which
provides that suit should be brought “in the parish in which the accident or injury occurred.”
12

4

In response, Plaintiff cites to Freeport McMoran Resource Partners v.
Kremco 21 in support of their argument. There, the Court found that the Direct
Action Statute could be incorporated through OCSLA, and therefore reasoned
that structures on the Outer Continental Shelf should be treated as though
they are within Louisiana for purposes of the Direct Action Statute.22 In
reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the language of OCSLA, and failed
to consider the unambiguous language of the Direct Action Statute itself.
Because the court did not consider whether the incident at issue fell within the
parameters of the Direct Action Statute, this case is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, this Court finds that though the Direct Action Statute may
be incorporated as surrogate federal law,23 OSCLA does not bring sites on the
Outer Continental Shelf within the territory of Louisiana. Accordingly, the
Direct Action Statue is inapplicable, and Defendant National Union’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Defendant National Union’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

La. Stat. Ann. § 22:1269. The Outer Continental Shelf is not within any parish of the state
of Louisiana.
21 No. 92-0036, 1992 WL 84312, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 1992).
22 Id.
23 As indicated in Joyner, the Direct Action Statute may be invoked in an OSCLA case
where the policy was written or delivered in Louisiana. Here, however, the parties concede
that neither of these requirements is met.

5

New Orleans, Louisiana this 19th day of June, 2017.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6