A Louisiana appellate court ruled that a truck driver could not maintain a tort suit against a refinery owner for injuries he sustained while providing transport services pursuant to a contract.

Case: Ford v. Phillips 66 Co., No. 19-920, 12/16/2020, published.

Facts: Grady Ford is a citizen of Texas who worked as a truck driver for Kenan Transport LLC. Ford’s job required him to travel to refineries and chemical companies to transport liquid hydrocarbons.

In July 2017, Ford went to the Phillips 66 Co. at a refinery in Westlake, Louisiana, and injured his shoulder while trying to open a valve.

Phillips 66 uses the services of Kenan Transport to shuttle fuels, chemicals and industrial gases from the Westlake facility to customers throughout Louisiana.

In 2013, Phillips 66 and Kenan Transport jointly executed a master motor carrier services agreement. In 2017, the parties executed a rider contract, which applied to the 2013 MSA.

Later in 2017, the parties entered into a new MSA to replace the old one. The new agreement had an effective date of July 1, 2017.

Both the 2013 and 2017 MSAs contained provisions stating that all Kenan Transport employees would be covered by the Louisiana workers’ compensation law if they were hurt while performing services under the MSA or any rider contract.

The MSAs further stated that Phillips 66 was the statutory employer of Kenan Transport’s employees for workers’ compensation purposes, but Kenan Transport remained primarily responsible for payment of Louisiana workers’ compensation benefits to injured employees.

Procedural history: Ford received workers’ compensation benefits under Texas law. He also filed a tort suit against Phillips 66 in Louisiana, alleging it had been negligent in maintaining the valve and that it was responsible for his injuries.

Phillips 66 filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting it was immune from civil liability as Ford’s statutory employer under Louisiana law. A trial judge denied the motion, finding a triable issue as to whether Ford was working under a contract of hire made in Louisiana.

Analysis: The Court of Appeal for the 3rd Circuit of Louisiana said that under state law, the recovery of workers’ compensation benefits is generally the exclusive remedy for an on-the-job injury. An employer who pays such benefits is entitled to civil immunity.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 23:1061(A) extends this immunity to any principal who has contracted with the injured employee’s direct employer for the execution of work that is essential to the principal’s business, and if there is a written contract that recognizes the principal as a statutory employer of the direct employer’s employees.

The court noted that the judge’s decision was based on the application of Section 23:1035.1(1), which provides that workers’ compensation coverage for an injured employee working outside the territorial limits of the state will be available only if the employment was based in Louisiana or he was working under a contract of hire made in the state.

While the judge was correct that the issue of whether an employee is working under a contract of hire made in Louisiana is a determination of fact, the issue was immaterial to Ford’s case, since Section 23:1035.1(1) applies only to injuries that occur outside the state. Since Ford’s accident happened in Louisiana, the court said the judge erred in finding summary judgment could not be granted because the record did not establish that he was working under a contract of hire made in Louisiana.

The court said the record established that Ford was hurt while working for Kenan Transport in Louisiana and that the work was governed by the 2017 MSA and rider.

Ford received Texas workers’ compensation benefits, but the court said he could have received benefits in Louisiana if he had filed a claim there.

The court determined that Louisiana workers’ compensation laws should be applied to the tort claim that arose out of an incident that occurred in Louisiana as a result of the performance of a contract for services to be rendered there.

Since the contract between Phillips 66 and Kenan Transport recognized Phillips 66 as the statutory employer, the court said Louisiana law provides a presumption that Phillips 66 shared in the immunity Keenan Transport had. The court said Ford did not present evidence to rebut this presumption, so Phillips 66 had to be treated as his statutory employer.

Disposition: Reversed, and summary judgment for Phillips 66 is granted.

To read the court’s decision, click here.