OXY USA Inc. filed suit seeking contribution and indemnity from Quintana Production Co., its alleged predecessor, and numerous insurers after settling an earlier lawsuit over oilfield contamination on property owned by Brownell Land Company. The claims arose from oil and gas operations under a 1979 Farmout Agreement covering a specific lease, with OXY alleging that the defendants were joint tortfeasors responsible for the contamination and that some had contractual indemnity obligations. In response to peremptory exceptions raising the objection of no right of action filed against the original and amended petitions, the trial court dismissed many of the claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's maintenance of the exceptions as to the defunct Quintana entities but reversed as to Corbin J. Robertson Jr. and his insurers, allowing those claims to proceed. The decision turned on whether OXY had a viable right of action for contribution against each named defendant under Louisiana law.
This worker’s compensation case arose after Joseph Brown suffered shoulder, neck, and back injuries in a 2005 logging accident while employed by A M Logging; after surgery and treatment, the Office of Workers’ Compensation found him permanently and totally disabled and awarded indemnity benefits plus penalties, attorney fees, costs, and interest. A M Logging appealed, challenging the admission of a vocational report, the disability finding, and the imposition of penalties and fees. The court affirmed the disability determination and related indemnity award, holding that the evidence supported Brown’s inability to return to suitable employment given his medical restrictions, limited skills, and criminal record. It reversed the penalties and attorney fees, however, because the employer had reasonably controverted the claim by presenting contrary medical and vocational evidence showing potential light-duty work. Legal interest on the reversed awards was also vacated.
The case involved a dispute between Hwy. 21 N. Covington, L.L.C. and French Market Supply, L.L.C. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed the lower court's decision in a ruling issued on July 26, 2011. The opinion was not published, and no specific reasoning was provided in the decision.
In this workers’ compensation dispute, claimant Hollie Novitsky sought benefits after a 2008 work-related vehicle accident, alleging injuries including to her low back with resulting incontinence. The workers’ compensation judge awarded temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses for her neck, shoulder, left leg, and left knee injuries based on the parties’ stipulations but denied benefits for the back injury after finding no supporting medical evidence connected it to the accident. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, holding that the judge’s factual finding on the claimant’s failure to carry her burden of proof was reasonable and not manifestly erroneous.
The case involved an insurer's subrogation claim under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against a fabricator of an I-beam used in a warehouse, after the roof collapsed under accumulated snow in 2008; the insurer sought recovery for payments made to its insured following the 2001 construction. The trial court granted the defendants' peremptory exception of peremption under La. R.S. 9:2772 and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the court held that the peremptive period does not bar the claim because La. R.S. 9:2772 applies only to design and construction activities by contractors and does not extend to manufacturers of defective component parts sued under the LPLA, which lacks a comparable peremptive period; the nature of the action as one for manufacturing defect controls whether the statute protects the defendant.
The case involved a dispute over a defaulted $18 million promissory note and related loan documents executed by Louisiana Hospital Center (LHC) in favor of GE Commercial Finance Business Property Corporation (GECF) to finance construction of a medical facility. LHC transferred the property to the Hammond Area Economic and Industrial Development District for tax incentives and leased it back, with a bond issued that the documents described as representing the same concurrent debt as the original note. After LHC missed payments, GECF accelerated the balance and sued LHC and the guarantors for liability under the note and guaranty agreements. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on liability in GECF's favor, and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the bond and lease terms explicitly preserved the original loan obligations without disturbance.
