Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · 2018 · Civil Procedure

262 So. 3d 936 (2018)

Updated July 19, 2026

Civil Proceduresummary judgmentinterlocutory judgmentsupervisory writsstatutory employer immunityLa. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3)written contractinadmissible evidence

Facts

After heavy rainfall on June 19, 2006, CITGO released toxic slop oil, wastewater, and toxic fumes, and later hired contractors to perform cleanup work that exposed additional workers. In 2008, CITGO filed an Admission of Fault stating it would pay plaintiffs all compensatory damages they proved were proximately caused by the releases. More than ten years after the releases, CITGO moved for summary judgment against certain contractor-employees, claiming statutory employer immunity based on contracts with Miller Environmental, Gulf Services, and Angelle Concrete. The trial court found the submitted contracts incomplete and inadmissible, denied summary judgment, and CITGO later appealed that denial after final damages judgments were entered.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying CITGO's motion for summary judgment on the ground that CITGO was the plaintiffs' statutory employer and therefore immune from tort liability? More specifically, did CITGO establish statutory employer status through admissible written contracts and related evidence, and could it avoid its earlier stipulation to fault and compensatory liability?

Rule

A statutory employer relationship under La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) does not exist unless there is a written contract between the principal and the contractor recognizing the principal as a statutory employer. On summary judgment, the mover bears the initial burden of properly supporting the motion with admissible evidence; that burden does not shift until the mover has carried it. A judicial confession made in a judicial proceeding constitutes full proof against the party, is indivisible, and may be revoked only on the ground of error of fact.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A chemical plant in Baton Rouge moved for summary judgment against an injured subcontractor, arguing statutory employer immunity. It attached two pages of a service agreement containing a statutory-employer clause, but the second page stated that Exhibits A through F and the plant's contractor manual were part of the agreement by reference, and none of those materials were included.

How should the court most likely rule on the motion?

Explanation. The mover bears the initial burden to properly support summary judgment with admissible evidence. A statutory employer relationship under La. R.S. 23:1061(A)(3) requires a written contract recognizing the principal as statutory employer. Where the submitted contract is incomplete and omits exhibits incorporated by reference, the majority treated it as inadmissible summary judgment evidence, so the burden never shifts to the worker.