Verdin v. BP Corporation North America, Inc.

Full title: JOEY VERDIN, v. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA, INC

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Jan 11, 2007

CIVIL ACTION NO: 06-0116, SECTION: "D"(1) (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO: 06-0116, SECTION: "D"(1).

January 11, 2007

ORDER AND REASONS

A. McNAMARA, Senior District Judge

Before the court is the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed by Defendant, BP Corporation North America, Inc. (BP) and opposed by Plaintiff, Joey Verdin. The motion, set for hearing on Wednesday, January 3, 2007, is before the court on briefs, without oral argument. Now, having considered the memoranda of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the court finds that the motion should be denied because after applying the Ruiz ¹ Factors, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff is BP's borrowed servant.

1 Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co., 413 F.2d 310, 312 (5^th Cir. 1969).

In making this finding, the court has considered the parties' court-ordered supplemental memoranda addressing the applicability of "Article 16, LOUISIANA STATUTORY EMPLOYEE" (contained in the subject "Master Maintenance and Construction Services Contract" between BP and Crown Oilfield Services, Inc.) on the issue of whether BP is the statutory employer of Plaintiff, when said Article 16 is read in pari materia with LSA-R.S. 23:1061(A)(2) (3). After considering these supplemental memoranda, the court concluded that because the subject accident allegedly occurred on a fixed platform on the Outer Continental Shelf, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.), and not the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act (LSA-R.S. 23: 1031 et. seq.), provides the applicable workers' compensation law in this matter. See Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b); and LSA-R.S. 23:1035.2.

Further, "under OCSLA, [a] Contract's choice of law provision is of no moment because the parties' choice of law will not trump the choice of laws scheme provided by Congress in OCSLA." Texaco Exploration Production, Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Products Co., Inc., 448 F.3d 760, 772, n. 8 (5^th Cir. 2006). Thus, Article 16 of the "Master Maintenance and Construction Services Contract" between BP and Crown Oilfield Services, Inc. is inapplicable in the determination of whether or not BP is the statutory employer of Plaintiff in this case.

Finally, with regard to BP's alternative position argued in its "Motion for Summary Judgment" that Plaintiff cannot prove its negligence claim against BP, the court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact.²

2 However, this finding should not be construed as to how the court would rule on a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (made pursuant Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 50(a)) after hearing the evidence presented at Trial.

Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that BP's "Motion for Summary Judgment" be and is hereby DENIED.