Opinion
2015 CA 1307
02-29-2016
JAMES BERNARD BURAS, JR. v. SEA SUPPLY, INC. AND B & J MARTIN, INC.
T. Houston Middleton, IV Matthew E. Lundy Lake Charles, LA And Conrad S. P. Williams, III Meredith R. Durham New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant James B. Buras, Jr. Georges M. Legrand Mark E. Hanna Juan C. Obregon New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees Sea Supply, Inc. and B & J Martin, Inc.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Lafourche State of Louisiana
No. 124987 The Honorable F. Hugh Larose, Judge Presiding T. Houston Middleton, IV
Matthew E. Lundy
Lake Charles, LA
And
Conrad S. P. Williams, III
Meredith R. Durham
New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant
James B. Buras, Jr. Georges M. Legrand
Mark E. Hanna
Juan C. Obregon
New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees
Sea Supply, Inc. and B & J Martin,
Inc. BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. HOLDRIDGE, J.
This matter is before us on appeal by plaintiff-appellant, James Buras, Jr., from a judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Sea Supply, Inc. and B & J Martin, Inc. (defendants). The issue before this court is whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the validity of the release executed by Mr. Buras so as to preclude the defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Buras sustained injuries on May 3, 2013, while working aboard a vessel owned and/or operated by the defendants. After reaching maximum medical improvement, Mr. Buras signed a "Receipt and Release of All Claims and Indemnity Agreement" (release), which settled all of his claims against the defendants. When Mr. Buras signed the release, he stated that he felt good, he was ready to go back to work, and he understood that he was giving up his legal rights in connection with this settlement. When asked if he wanted to speak with a lawyer, Mr. Buras declined multiple times, even specifically stating, "I do not want a lawyer."
Prior to signing the release, Mr. Buras' treating physicians determined that he had reached maximum medical cure and said that he could return to work as of June 6, 2013.
On April 25, 2014, Mr. Buras filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment seeking to have the trial court declare the release null and void for various reasons. After conducting discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that there was no genuine issue of material fact because all of Mr. Buras' claims against the defendants arising out of his accident were settled by way of the release. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment apparently finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact. A written judgment granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Mr. Buras' claims was signed by the trial court on June 22, 2015. Mr. Buras now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
It is well settled that an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. GameStop, Inc. v. St. Mary Parish Sales and Use Tax Dep't, 14-0878 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/19/15), 166 So.3d 1090, 1094, writ denied, 15-0783 (La. 6/1/15), 171 So.3d 929. The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, except those disallowed by La. C.C.P. art. 969; the procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). Summary judgment shall be rendered in favor of the mover if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for purposes of the motion, show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).
All citations in this opinion referencing La. C.C.P. art. 966 are made to that article as it existed prior to its amendment by 2015 La. Acts, No. 422, Sec. 1 (eff. 1/1/16).
On a motion for summary judgment predicated on a seaman's release, the federal jurisprudence has placed a heavy burden on the ship owner for he must conclusively demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Coto v. J. Ray McDermott, S.A., 99-1866 (La. App. 4th Cir. 10/25/00), 772 So.2d 828, 830. Because seamen are wards of admiralty, releases or settlements involving a seaman are subject to careful scrutiny. Wink v. Rowan Drilling Co., 611 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 823, 101 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980).
The ultimate concern in cases involving the rights of seamen ... is not whether the seaman has received what the court believes to be
adequate consideration, but, rather, whether the seaman relinquished his rights with informed understanding of his rights and a full appreciation of the consequences when he executed the release. Stipelcovich v. Sand Dollar Marine, Inc., 805 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1986). A release is not valid unless it has been executed without deception or coercion. Durden v. Exxon Corp., 803 F.2d 845 (5th Cir. 1986). The courts of appeal must be particularly vigilant to guard against overreaching when a seaman purports to release his rights to compensation for personal injuries. Borne v. A & P Boat Rentals No. 4, Inc., 780 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1986). Releases signed by seamen are given the most careful scrutiny and the burden is on the ship owner to show that the seaman signed the release with full understanding of his rights and the effect of his action. Halliburton v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 620 F.2d 444 (5th Cir. 1980).Neely v. Hollywood Marine, Inc., 530 So.2d 1116, 1123 (La. 1988), cert. denied 489 U.S. 1080, 109 S.Ct. 1533, 103 L.Ed.2d 838 (1989).
DISCUSSION
In his one assignment of error, Mr. Buras argues that the trial court erred in finding that the defendants proved that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he was fully aware that he was giving up his rights by signing the release. Mr. Buras also argues that the evidence presented does not conclusively demonstrate that he was fully aware of and understood his right to seek legal counsel. We disagree.
When determining the validity of a seaman's release, courts generally look to four factors:
1. Adequacy of the consideration: Was the plaintiff fairly compensated given the extent of his injuries, and the inherent risk of trying the case?Rudolph v. D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC, 11-1074 (La. App. 5th Cir. 4/24/12), 94 So.3d 21, 26. In applying these factors, this court has determined that the main issue is whether the defendants have met their burden of proving that Mr. Buras executed the release freely and with a full understanding of his rights and the effects and consequences of his actions. Recognizing the obligation to carefully scrutinize a seaman's release, and the special relationship a seaman holds as a ward of the court, this court has carefully examined the record to determine if any deception or coercion was involved and whether Mr. Buras was fully informed of his rights.
2. The medical advice available and given to the plaintiff: Was the plaintiff fully advised of his injuries and future prognosis?
3. The legal advice available and given: Was the plaintiff fully advised of his rights?
4. The arms length of the parties: Was there overreaching?
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted a copy of the transcript of the exchange that occurred between Mr. Buras and the adjuster, Pierre Gautreaux, given at the execution of the release, as well as a copy of the release itself. The release specifically states that by signing the document, Mr. Buras voluntarily settled all claims that have arisen in connection with his accident and that he had no more legal rights against the defendants. Additionally, the transcript revealed that Mr. Gautreaux provided Mr. Buras with a thorough and detailed explanation of what specific legal rights he was giving up by signing this release. The following exchange occurred between Mr. Gautreaux and Mr. Buras during the execution of the release:
Q. You understand you'll be giving up legal rights, right, [Mr. Buras]?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. [You] understand that when [you] sign this document it means that [you] [are] agreeing to give up every legal right that [you] have against Sea Supply, Inc., their boats, their customers and their insurance companies, in connection with any such past accident, injury, illness and/or labor employment issue that may have occurred or made itself known while [you] [were] working aboard a boat owned or operated by Sea Supply, Inc., or by any parent, subsidiary or sister company, including but not limited to B & J Martin, Inc., or while [you] [were] working for any of these companies in any way whatsoever, either on a boat or off a boat. So you're giving up your rights to make claims against everybody whatsoever in the world in connection with anything; injury, illness, accident that happened to you today, backward in time, while you've been working for Sea Supply. You understand that?
A. Yes, sir.
...
Q. [Y]ou're giving up very powerful legal rights by, by signing this document ... my job ... is to make sure you completely understand okay?Mr. Gautreaux also advised Mr. Buras that he had the right to have an attorney present:
A. Yes, sir.
Q. [Mr. Buras], you understand that you can have a lawyer if you want to during this meeting? Do you want that or do you just want to settle your claim?Mr. Buras was also provided a comprehensive explanation of his rights as a seaman. Mr. Gautreaux even emphasized repeatedly the consequences of Mr. Buras signing the release. The following exchange occurred between Mr. Gautreaux and Mr. Buras:
A. Just settle my claim.
Q. So you do not want a lawyer, that's correct?
A. ... I do not want a lawyer.
Q. You understand though that once you sign this paper here, ... you will never again be able to use [these rights] to make a claim against or file a lawsuit against Sea Supply, B & J Martin, their vessels, their insurance companies, their customers, anybody, whatsoever ... in connection with any accident, injury, or illness that happened today backward in time ... while you have been working for Sea Supply or B & J Martin?
A. Yes.
Q. You understand that?
A. I do.
...
Q. Ok, now so, ... knowing that these are your rights and knowing, ... that you're giving up all your claims... [s]o you're giving up your rights to sue people for money ... [y]ou're giving up your right to sue ... B & J Martin, Sea Supply .... You understand that?
A. Yes.
Additionally, in his deposition Mr. Buras confirms his understanding of what he agreed to in the release. Mr. Buras testified that no one forced him to settle his claims, that he executed the settlement of his own free will, that he understood he was giving up powerful legal rights, and that no one forced him to sign the release. He further testified that it was his personal choice not to retain an attorney. Thus, the transcript of the exchange during the release execution and Mr. Buras' deposition provide overwhelming evidence that Mr. Buras fully understood the rights that he was voluntarily giving up in exchange for settling his claims.
After reviewing the evidence, this court is of the opinion that there are no genuine issues of material fact that preclude the granting of summary judgment. The record establishes that Mr. Buras released all claims against the defendants stemming from his injury without coercion or deception and with a full understanding of his rights. While the law does extend special protections to seamen under certain circumstances, it does not impose a fiduciary duty on ship owners to serve as legal advisors to their employees. See Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1124 (9th Cir. 2006). Although Mr. Buras was not represented by counsel at the time he executed the release, the undisputed facts surrounding the execution establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that he was an informed party who knowingly waived his right to be represented by an attorney. Moreover, although Mr. Buras argued that he was coerced, deceived, treated unfairly, or did not understand his rights in the release, he failed to offer any evidence in support of his assertions to oppose the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented herein, this court finds that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The record is devoid of any contradictory evidence offered by Mr. Buras in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Even when asked about his allegations during oral arguments, counsel could not provide supporting evidence to form the basis for the remarks in his brief. --------
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting the defendants, Sea Supply, Inc. and B & J Martin, Inc., motion for summary judgment and dismissing Mr. Buras' claims is affirmed. James Buras, Jr., is to bear all costs of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.