Home/Louisiana Court of Appeal/Heath v. BJ Hughes, Inc.

Heath v. BJ Hughes, Inc.

431 So. 2d 68, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8348
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 5, 1983
Docket82-CA-0622
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 431 So. 2d 68 (Heath v. BJ Hughes, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Heath v. BJ Hughes, Inc., 431 So. 2d 68, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8348 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

431 So.2d 68 (1983)

Danny J. HEATH
v.
B.J. HUGHES, INC. et al.

No. 82-CA-0622.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 5, 1983.

Kenneth Ray Rush, G. Earl Humphries, III, Law Offices of Ray Rush, Oakdale, for Danny J. Heath, plaintiff, appellant.

Vincent P. Fornias, Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Walter, Baton Rouge, for B.J. Hughes, Inc., defendant.

Daniel R. Atkinson, Owen, Richardson, Taylor, Mathews & Atkinson, Baton Rouge, *69 for Goldrus Drilling Co. and Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., defendants.

James E. Moore, Franklin, Moore & Walsh, Baton Rouge, for Neal Bridges and Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., defendants, appellees.

Before EDWARDS, WATKINS and SHORTESS, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals the summary judgment granted to Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Neal Bridges, defendants herein. We affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff was injured while working on a drilling rig for Goldrus Drilling Company. Plaintiff first sued Goldrus and others in tort, alleging that his injuries were caused by the intentional act of his employer. This suit, however, was dismissed by summary judgment. Subsequently, plaintiff amended his petition and brought this tort action against Aetna, Goldrus' workmen's compensation insurer, and Neal Bridges, a safety inspector for Aetna. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries are due to Bridges' negligent safety inspections, for which Aetna is responsible. Aetna and Bridges filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. On appeal, plaintiff urges that summary judgment was improper, on the grounds that:

(1) A material fact existed, i.e., whether Aetna received a fee for inspecting the rig.

(2) The defendants owed plaintiff a duty to warn him of the dangerous conditions on the rig by virtue of their safety inspections.

DUTY OF AETNA

The pertinent part of Aetna's workmen's compensation insurance policies provides:

"The company shall be permitted but not obligated to inspect the named insured's property and operations at any time. Neither the company's right to make inspections nor the making thereof nor any report thereon shall constitute an undertaking, on behalf of or for the benefit of the named insured or others, to determine or warrant that such property or operations are safe or healthful, or are in compliance with any law, rule or regulation."

Almost the exact factual setting and policy language confronted this court in Kennard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 277 So.2d 170 (La.App. 1st Cir.1973), where we held that a workmen's compensation insurer owed no duty to the employee of its insured even though it conducts safety inspections of the work place. As in Kennard, the above policy language makes it clear that the inspections were made only in connection with the contract of insurance, and not for the benefit of plaintiff. Additionally, the presence or absence of a fee for the inspections is irrelevant under Kennard.

DECREE

Accordingly, for the above-expressed reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant's costs.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grant v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., Inc.
785 So. 2d 1041 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2001)
Eddie Lee Graham v. Milky Way Barge, Inc., (Two Cases). Charles Taylor, Cross-Appellant v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Cross-Appellee. Charles Taylor, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross and Milky Way Barge Line Corporation, Defendant-Cross Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, and Land & Offshore Services, Inc., U.S. Fire Insurance Company, and North River Insurance Company, Third Party Cross-Appellee v. Continental Underwriters, Ltd., Third Party Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross and Horace Herrin and Horace Herrin Agency, Third Party v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant-Appellee-Cross Elizabeth Daniels, Etc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross and Milky Way Barge Line Corp., Defendant-Cross-Appellee v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation and American Fidelity Insurance Company, and Continental Underwriters, Ltd., Defendant-Third Party Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendant-Third Party Defendant-Appellee-Cross and Horace Herrin, Third Party Bossier Bank & Trust Company v. American Fidelity Insurance Company
923 F.2d 1100 (Third Circuit, 1991)
Graham v. Milky Way Barge, Inc.
923 F.2d 1100 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
Kent v. Jomac Products, Inc.
542 So. 2d 99 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Tomasich v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
470 So. 2d 191 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Taylor v. Jim Walter Corp.
731 F.2d 266 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
Enola Taylor v. Jim Walter Corp., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Ella Mae Walker Stimage v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Melvin Bennett v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
731 F.2d 266 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
431 So. 2d 68, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-bj-hughes-inc-lactapp-1983.