Miller v. Nabors Offshore Corporation, et al, No. 2:2016cv02892 - Document 75 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS granting 70 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Gemini Insurance Company is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 9/7/2017. (Reference: 17-1542)(caa)

Download PDF
Miller v. Nabors Offshore Corporation, et al Doc. 75 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A CAN D ICE TRU D Y MILLER, ET AL., Pla in tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -2 8 9 2 c/ w 17-154 2 N ABORS OFFSH ORE CORPORATION , ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION "E" ( 1) APPLIES TO: 17-154 2 ORD ER & REASON S The Court has pen ding before it Gem ini Insurance Com pany's m otion for sum m ary judgm ent against the Plaintiffs. 1 The Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the m otion. Accordingly, the Court considers Plaintiff's statem ent of uncontested facts to be adm itted pursuant to LR 56.2. Although the dispositive m otion is unopposed, sum m ary judgm ent is not autom atic and the Court m ust determ ine whether Plaintiff has shown entitlem ent to judgm ent as a m atter of law. See, e.g., Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 20 0 6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). According to Plaintiff's statem ent of uncontested facts, the Gem ini Insuran ce Com pany Energy Com m ercial General Liability Policy issued to Whistler Energy II, LLC was written and delivered in Texas and this suit arises from an alleged tort that occurred aboard a fixed platform located in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Louisiana, on the Outer Continental Shelf. 2 Louisiana’s direct action statute provides a direct cause of 1 R. 2 Doc. 70 . R. Doc. 70 -3. 1 Dockets.Justia.com action against the insurer of an alleged tortfeasor when the policy was written or delivered in Louisiana or the alleged tort occurred in Louisiana. 3 In the absence of any opposition filed by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that this satisfies Plaintiff's burden to show that the Plaintiffs do not have a direct action against Gem ini Insurance Com pany. For the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORD ERED that Gem ini Insurance Com pany’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent m otion is GRAN TED . Plaintiffs’ claim s against Defendant Gem ini Insuran ce Com pany is D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 7th d ay o f Se p te m be r, 2 0 17. ___ ______________ ________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 3 Quarles v. H elm erich & Pay ne Int’l Drilling Co., No. CV 16-20 38, 20 17 WL 263420 3 (E.D. LA. J une 19, 20 17). See also La. R.S. 22:1269. 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.