Sullivan et al v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut et al, No. 2:2016cv15461 - Document 36 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 24 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/13/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sullivan et al v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut et al Doc. 36 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A SH AN TEL SU LLIVAN , ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -154 6 1 TRAVELERS IN D EMN ITY COMPAN Y OF CON N ECTICU T, ET AL. SECTION : “E”( 5) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Defendant The Travelers Indem nity Com pany of Connecticut’s (“Travelers”) Re-Urged Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dism iss. 1 Plaintiffs oppose Travelers’ m otion. 2 For the following reasons, Defendant’s m otion is D EN IED . BACKGROU N D On Septem ber 12, 20 16, Shantel Sullivan, individually and on behalf of her m inor child, Kyle Sullivan, and on behalf of the Decedent, J erem y Sullivan, filed a petition for dam ages in the 24th J udicial District Court for the Parish of J efferson, State of Louisiana. 3 On October 12, 20 16, Defendants filed their notice of rem oval. 4 On Decem ber 8 , 20 16, Plaintiffs filed their am ended com plaint. 5 On Decem ber 19, 20 16, Travelers filed its Reurged 12(b)(6) Motion to Dism iss. 6 Travelers argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to invoke the “narrow exception” set forth in W eber v. State, 635 So. 2d 18 8 (La. 1994). 7 On Decem ber 31, 20 16, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Traveler’s m otion arguing they have alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action as set forth in W eber an d its progeny which perm it a tort action again st an injured worker’s em ployer 1 R. Doc. 24. Defendant’s m otion incorporates the argum ents m ade in its original Rule 12(b)(6) m otion to dism iss, R. Doc. 5, which was dism issed without prejudice as m oot followin g the Plaintiffs’ filing of their am ended com plaint. See R.Doc. 21. 2 R. Doc. 26. 3 R. Doc. 1-1. 4 R. Doc. 1. 5 R. Doc. 20 . 6 R. Doc. 24. 7 R. Doc. 24-1, at 1. 1 Dockets.Justia.com and workers’ com pen sation insurance carrier when an em ployer has knowledge that, to a substantial certainty, the denial of ben efits will result in a significant and life-threatening worsening of the injured em ployee’s com pensable condition. 8 LEGAL STAN D ARD Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court m ay dism iss a com plaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. 9 “To survive a m otion to dism iss, a com plaint m ust contain sufficient factual m atter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”10 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged.”11 The court, however, does not accept as true legal con clusions or m ere con clusory statem ents, and “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions m asquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a m otion to dism iss.”12 “[T]hreadbare recitals of elem ents of a cause of action, supported by m ere conclusory statem ents” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancem ent” are not sufficient. 13 In sum m ary, “[f]actual allegations m ust be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”14 “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not perm it the court to infer m ore than the m ere possibility of m isconduct, the com plaint has alleged—but it has not 8 R. Doc. 26. Bell Atl. Corp. v . Tw om bly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (20 0 7); Cuvillier v. Tay lor, 50 3 F.3d 397, 40 1 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). 10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (20 0 9) (quotin g Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 570 ). 11 Id. 12 S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Suprem e Court of the State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 20 0 1) (citing Fernandez-M ontes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993)). 13 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663, 678 (citations om itted). 14 Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 555. 9 2 show[n]’—that the pleader is entitled to relief.”15 “Dism issal is appropriate when the com plaint ‘on its face show[s] a bar to relief.’”16 However, “a m otion to dism iss for failure to state a claim is ‘viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.’”17 AN ALYSIS Insurance carriers, like insured em ployers, ordinarily enjoy tort im m unity under Louisiana’s workers’ com pensation schem e. 18 In W eber, the Louisiana Suprem e Court created an exception to the Worker’s Com pensation Act’s exclusive rem edy provisions in cases where an em ployer intentionally and arbitrarily refuses to provide m edical treatm ent for a com pensable injury with the knowledge that, to a substantial certainty, the refusal will result in the injured worker’s death. 19 Although W eber refers to the “em ployer”, Travelers concedes “som e courts construing the W eber exception have applied it in em ployees’ actions against their em ployer’s insurance carrier.”20 As Plaintiffs correctly identify, a claim arisin g under the W eber exception exists when a plaintiff alleges: (1) that he suffered a com pensable injury; (2) that his em ployer arbitrarily and intentionally refuses to pay reasonable m edical expenses; (3) that the refusal results in a significant, im m ediate, and irreversible deterioration of the em ployee’s health; (4) this result would not have occurred otherwise, and; (5) the em ployer knew that such results were substantially certain to follow from the refusal to pay. 21 Accepting the 15 Id. (quotin g Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Cutrer v. McMillan, 30 8 F. App’x 819, 8 20 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (per curiam ) (quotation s om itted). 17 R&B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. v. Pittm an, No. CIV.A. 0 2-1942, 20 0 2 WL 318 86792, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 18, 20 0 2) (Kaiser Alum inum & Chem ical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipy ards, Inc., 677 F.2d 10 45, 10 50 (5th Cir. 1985)). 18 See La. R.S. 23:10 32; Bolton v. Tulane Univ. of Louisiana, 96-1246 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/ 29/ 97), 692 So. 2d 1113, 1125, as clarified on reh’g (Apr. 9, 1997), w rit denied, 97-1229 (La. 9/ 26/ 97), 70 1 So. 2d 98 2. 19 W eber, 635 So. 2d at 193-94. 20 R. Doc. 5-1, at 4 (citin g Kelly v. CAN Ins. Co., 98-0 454 (La. 3/ 12/ 99), 729 So. 2d 10 33, 10 34). 21 R. Doc. 26, at 3 (citin g Stev ens v. W al-Mart Stores, Inc., 29,124 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/ 24/ 97), 68 8 So. 2d 668, 672, w rit denied, 97-0 671 (La. 5/ 9/ 97), 693 So. 2d 768 ). 16 3 facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ Am ended Com plaint as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a viable claim against Travelers under the W eber exception and its progeny. CON CLU SION Accordingly; IT IS ORD ERED that the Defendant’s Re-Urged 12(b)(6) Motion to Dism iss 22 is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 13 th d ay o f Fe bru ary, 2 0 17. ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 22 R. Doc. 24. 4
]]>
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.
