Global Management Enterprises v. Commerce & Indust, No. 13-30157 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-30157 Document: 00512364080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-30157 Summary Calendar September 5, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GLOBAL MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., Plaintiff Appellant, versus COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CV-1681 Before KING, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Global Management Enterprises, L.L.C., appeals a summary judgment that is based primarily on a determination that its employee, Librado de la Cruz, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 13-30157 Document: 00512364080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 No. 13-30157 is a longshoreman whose injury claim therefore was explicitly excluded from coverage for workers compensation benefits provided by defendant Commerce & Industry Insurance Company. The parties agree that the insurance policy in question excludes claims subject to being paid pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The district court analyzed the issue in a thorough Memorandum Ruling dated January 25, 2013, that examined, inter alia, whether de la Cruz satisfied the situs and status requirements of 33 U.S.C. ยงยง 902(3) and 903(a). Part of the inquiry was whether the injury occurred in an adjoining area to an area used for maritime purposes. On April 29, 2013, while this appeal was in the briefing stage, this court issued its en banc opinion in New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. v. Director, Office of Worker s Compensation Programs, 718 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). That opinion contains a careful analysis of the adjoining area requirement in deciding situs. The district court did not have the benefit of the decision when it issued its ruling, and the briefs do not mention it except for one short reference in the appellee s brief. Although we could decide the application of New Orleans Depot to the facts in the record, we conclude it is better for the district court to do that in the first instance. The judgment is therefore VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for the district court to examine the facts in light of the new decision. Our ruling is not to be read as a comment, one way or the other, on the applicability of New Orleans Depot or on what proceedings the district court should conduct or on what decisions it should make on remand. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
