Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31206
BAYOU S TE EL CORP ORAT I ON; NEW YORK MARI NE & GENERAL I NSURANCE COM PA NY P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. EVANS TON I NSURANCE COM PA NY; NATI ONAL UNI ON FI RE I NSURANCE COM PA NY OF PI TT S BURGH , P A. D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt F o rth e E a s te r n D is tr ic t o f L o u is ia n a .

N o. 2: 07- c v- 1034

B ef ore K IN G , D AV IS, an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: *

I n t hi s c as e w e c ons i der t he m eani ng and sc ope of an endor se m entt o a n i n suran ce pol i cy excl u di n g cove ra g e f or c l ai m s orsui t s agai n stan i n sured brou gh t“ pu rsuan tt o” t h e L on gsh orem en an d H arbor W orker’ s C om pen sati on A ct (“L H W C A ” )
. M ore part i cul arl y, w e consi der w h et h er t h e excl u si on of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31206

2 cov era ge for cl a i m s b rou gh t p u rsu a n t to th e L H W C A a p p l i es t o a th i rd p a rty
m ar i t i m e t or ts ui tbr ought agai nstt he i nsur ed by an i nj ure d w or kerc ove r ed by t he LH W CA
. W e c o nc l ude t hatt he ex c l us i o n do e s no ta ppl y and r e ve r s e t he
o r d e ro f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, r e a c h in ga co n tr a r y co n c lu s io n .
I
. In 200 2, B ayou SteelC orporati on ( “ B ayou ” ) en gag ed M em co B arge L i n es und era c l as si c c ont r ac tof aff reigh tm entt o t r anspo r ts t ee lbundl es by bar ge f rom B ayou ’ s faci l i t y i n L a P l ace, L ou i si an a t o B ayou ’ s faci l i t y on t h e C al u m et Ri ve ri n I l l i no i s . Bay o u l o ad e d t he b ar ge i n Lo ui s i ana a nd h i r e d Ki ndr a M ar i ne T e r m in a l, In c ., a s te v e d o r in gco m p a n y , to u n lo a d t h e b a r g e u p o n a r r iv a l in Il l i n oi s. W h il e un l oad i n g t h e barge, R yan C am pb el l , a K i n dra em pl oyee, s u ffe r e d s u b s ta n tia l inju r ie s . A s a re s u lt, C a m p b e ll file d s u it a g a in s t B a y o u in I l l i no i s s t at e c o ur t
. Bay o u’ s pr i m ar y w har f i nge ri ns ur e r ac c e pt e d c o ve r ag e a nd defense f

or C am pb el l ’ s c l a im s a g ai n stB ayou . H ow ever N ew Y ork M ari n e & G en eralI n suran ce C om pa n y ( “ N Y M A G IC ” ) , B ayou ’ s excess w h arf i n ger i n surer, E va n ston In su ra n ce C om p a n y (“E va n ston ”) , B a yo u ’ s p ri m a ry ge n era ll i a b i l i ty i nsur er , and N at i onalU ni on Fi r e I nsura n ce C om pany of Pi t t sb urgh ( “ N U F IC P A ” ) , B ayou ’ s exces s i n surer, al li n i t i al l y den i ed coverage. F a c e d w ith C a m p b e ll’ s c la im fo rd a m a g e s , B a y o u b r o u g h t s u it a g a in s t a ll of i t s i nsur er s w ho h ad deni ed co ver age of C am pbel l ’ s c l ai m . O n M ar c h 23, 2007, N Y M A G IC agreed to f u n d a su bstanti al p o rt i on of t h e set t l em en tbetw een C a mp b e l la n d B a y o u i n e x c h a n g e f o rB a y o u ’ s d i s mi s s a lo f a l lo f i t s c l a i ms a ga i n st N Y M A G IC
. N Y M A G IC also took an ass i gn m en t from B a yo u of i ts cl aim s a g ai n stt h e rem ai n i n g i n surers w h o conti n u ed to den y coverage. Fol l o w i ng Bayo u a nd NY M AG IC ’ s agr e e m e nt , t he pa r t i e s w e r e r e al i gne d a nd N Y M A G IC j oi n ed B ayou a s p l ai n t i f f a gainstd efen da n ta pp el l ees. In O ct ober ofN o. 08- 31206

As anexcess insurer, NUFIC PA’s policyfollowed the form of th e B ayou’s primary 1 policies. As such , coverage under Evansto n’s policy nece ssarily im p lie s coverage under NU FICPA’s po licy. 3 200 8, t h e parti es f

i l ed opp osi n g M ot i on s f or Su m m ary Ju dg m en tan d p resented th e cov era ge i ssu es to th e d i stri ct cou rt E vanst on’ s de ni alof c ove r age w as based on a exc l usi ons f r om i t s pol i c y. 1
w hi c h s t at e d: T h i s i n su ra n ce d oe s n ot ap p l y to “B od i l y I nj u ry ”, “P rop erty D am age”, “P ersonal I nj u ry” , or “A dv ert i si n g Inj u ry” , i m posed up on yo u o ra s s um e d b y yo u und e rc o nt r ac tw i t h r e s pe c tt o c l ai m s m ad e o r s ui t s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t y o u o r a n y i n d e m n i t e e p u r s u a n t t o t he
“ U n i t ed S t ates L on gsh orem en & H arbor W orkers C om pen sati on A ct” (T i tl e 3 3 U S C A , S ection s 90 1 - 9 5 0 ) i n cl u d i n g a n y a m en d m en ts o rre v is io n s th e r e to
. R ec or d, pp. 149- 155. B ef or e t he d i stri c tc our t , Evanst on c ont ended t hat be c aus e o f

b o t h Cam pb e l l ’ s s t at us a s a l o ngs ho r e m an a n d t he na t ur e o f t he cl ai m s he assert ed ag ai n stB ayou , C am pb el l ’ s cl ai m or sui tcou l d on l y h ave been br ought purs uant t o se c t i on 905(b) or se c t i on 933 of t he LH W C A
. A c c or di ngl y, Evans t o n a r gue d, Cam pb e l l ’ s c l ai m s w e r e “ pur s uantt o ” t he LH W CA
. Bay o u, h o w e v e r , m a in ta in e d th a t C a m p b e ll’ s a s s e r tio n a g a in s t B a y o u w a s n o t a cla im
o rs u it b r o u g h t “ p u r s u a n t t o ” t h e L H W C Ab u t w a s a cla im g r o u n d e d in
n e g l i g e n c e u n d e rt h e g e n e r a lma r i t i me l a w. T h e d i stri ct cou rt gra n ted E va n ston ’ s M oti on f or S u m m a ry Ju d g m en t, ho l di ng t h a tCa m p b e l l ’ s c l ai m s a ga i ns tBayo u wer e pur s uantt o t he LH W CA a nd th u s E v a n s to n ’ s p o lic y p r o v id e d n o co v e r a g e to B a y o u . Bayo u a ppe al e d. II. T h i s cou rt review s a d i stri ct co u rt’ s gr a n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo , a p p l y i n gth e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Ki m be r l y- C l ark Cor

p. v. F act ory Mu t . I

n s. Co. , 56 6 F
. 3 d 54 1 ( 5 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). Apa rty is en ti tl ed toN o. 08- 31206

4 s u m m a r y ju d g m e n to n l y if “ t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d d i s c lo s u r e m a te r ia ls on f i l e, and an y af

f i davi t s sho w t hat t her e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue as t o a ny m at er i al fa c t a n d t h a t t h e mo v a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n t a s a ma t t e r o f l a w. ” F e d
. R. C i v. P. 56. III. Bayo u a r gue s f

i rst t hatEvan s t o n’ s po l i c y e xc l us i o n f o rs ui t s b r o ugh t

“ purs uant t o” t he Longshor em en & H ar borW or ker ’ s C om pensa t i on A c t , 33 U
. S. C
. § 901 etse q doe s note xc l u d e c ove r age f ornegl i genc e c l ai m s br ought by l ongs hor em en agai nstt hi r d par t i es under 33 U
. S. C
. § 933. In f i n di n g t h at t h e excl u si on di d app l y i n t h i s case, t h e di st ri ctcourtrel i ed
o n o u r d e cisio n in th e co v e ra g e ca se of Bea um o ntR i c e Mi l l, Inc . v. Mi d-Am e r i c an Ind em n i ty I

n suran ce C o. , 9 48 F
. 2d 9 50 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2)
. I n Bea um o nt , M i dA m eri can I n dem n i t y Insuran ce C om pa n y (M A II C ) is sued a n excess C G L pol i cy t o Beaum ontR i c e M i l l
. As i n t hi s c as e, t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he under l yi ng s ui tw as a l on gsh orem an not em pl oyed b y B eau m on tw h o w as inj u red w h en a sack of ri ce fe ll o n h im
. T h e l o n g s h o r e m a n b r o u g h t a n a c tio n a g a in s t B e a u m o n t in
n egl i gen ce and B eau m on ta ss ert ed a thi rd pa rt y dem an d ag ai n stM A II C f or coverage. M A IC C , h ow ever, ref u sed coverage based on a n ex cl u si on in it s pol i cy w i t h B eau m on t
. T h e excl u si on st ated t h at M A IC C w i l lnot i n sure, “ an y l osses ari si n g ou t of i nj uri es co ver ed und er th e U n ited S ta te s L o n g sh o re an d H arbor W or ker s A c t , Federa l E m pl oye es Li abi l i t y Act , M ar i t i m e o rA dm i r al t y Law
w h eth e r b rou gh t by the i nj u red em p l oy ee or a n y th i rd pa rty.” Idat951 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Al t ho ugh t he fac t s i n B ea u m o n t ar e s i m i l art o t ho s e i n t h i s c as e , t he
e xc l us i o n ati s s ue i n B ea u m o n t is v e r y d if fe r e n t fr o m t h e e x c lu s io n in E v a n s t o n ’s pol i cy. E van st on ’ s pol i cy excl u des coverage f or “ clai m s m ad e or su i ts br o ugh t
a g a in st [B a y o u ] p u r s u a n t to t h e L H W C A ” w h i l e M A IC C ’ s excl u si on den i ed
co v e ra g e for “a n y los se s a risin gou t of i nj ur i es cover e d u n d e rth e L H W C A .”N o. 08- 31206

5 ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. I n Bea um o nt , t h e i nj u red l on gsh orem an ’ s i nj u ri es w ere c o v e r e d u n d e rth e L H W C A
. In d e e d , h e w a s r e c e iv in gL H W C Ab e n e fits fr o m h is
e m p lo y e ra fte rth e a c c id e n t. U n d e rt h e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e e x c lu s io n in Bea um o nt , t h en , t h e courtha d n o occ asi on t o consi der t h e na t u re of t h e i nj u red l on gsh orem an ’ s c l ai m against B eau m on t
. T h e fact t h at h i s i nj u ri es w ere c overed unde rt he LH W CA t r i gg e r e d t he e xc l us i o n. But i n t hi s ca s e , w e m us tl o o k t o t he
n a tu r e o f C a m p b e ll’ s cla im s a g a in s t B a y o u r a th e rt h a n lo o k in ga t w h e th e rh is i nj ur i e s w e r e c o ve r e d unde r t he LH W CA
. The e xc l us i o n c o nt ai ne d i n Bea um o nt is th e r e fo r e d is t in g u is h a b le fr o m th e e x c lu s io n w e m u s tin t e r p r e tin E v a n s t o n ’s pol i c y. A n i n sura n ce pol i cy i s a c on t ractsubj ectt o t h e gen eralrul es of contr act in te r p r e ta tio n s e t fo r th in th e L o u is ia n a C iv il C o d e . Su c c e s s ion of Fan nal y v . L afayet t e Ins. Co. , 805 So. 2d 1134, 1137 ( La. 2002)
. In the i nt er pre t at i on o f an i ns ur anc e po l i c y, o urr e s po ns i bi l i t y i s t o de t e r m i ne t he c o m m o n i nt e nto f t he p a r tie s . L a . C iv . C o d e a r t. 2 0 4 5 . T o a s c e r ta in t h is c o m m o n in te n t, c o u r ts b e g in th e ira n a ly s is w ith a r e v ie w o f th e w o r d s in t h e in s u r a n c e c o n tr a c t. S u cce ssi on of F an n aly v. L afayet t e I n s. Co. , 8 0 5 S o .2d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 (L a . 2 0 0 2 ) c i t i ng La. C i v. C ode art. 204 7. A ccor di n gl y, t h e proper i n qu i ry i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er E van st on ’ s pol i cy excl u des coverage f or t h e dam ages pa i d to M r. C am pb el lm u st
c o m m e n c e w ith th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e e x c lu s io n . T h e excl u si on i n t h i s c ase b a rs “cl ai m s m ad e or sui t s brough t ” against B ayou “ pu rs u a n t t o” t h e L H W C A
. T h e L H W C Aackn ow l edg es t h ree t yp es of cl ai m s avai l able t o a covered l on gsh orem an : a c la im forcom pen sati on against
a co v e re d em p loy e r u n d e r § 9 0 4 , a tor t cla im a g a in st a “v e ss e l” u n d e r § 9 0 5 (b ),
a n d a t o r tc l a i m a g a i n s tt h i r d p a r t i e s u n d e r§ 9 3 3
. I n t he p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w, E v a n s to n a c k n o w le d g e d th a t B a y o u w a s n o t C a m p b e ll’ s e m p lo y e ra n d C a m p b e ll
a s s e r t e d n o c l a i m s fo rc o m p e n s a t i o n a g a i n s tBa y o u u n d e r§ 9 0 4 o f t h e L HW CA. R e c o r d , p .8 6 1
. A t o r a l a r g u m e n t, c o u n s e l fo ra p p e lle e s co n c e d e d th a t C a m p b e ll,N o. 08- 31206

G. Gilm or e & C
. B lack , Th eLa w of A d m i ra lty, § 6–4 , p.27 8 (1 975) (“If th e 2 circu mstance s of his inj urycon stitut ed amaritime tort, the harbor worker, lik e anyoth er person inj ured by or on board a ship, coul d brin g an action in p ersonamagain st th e shipowne r or i n rem a ga inst the ship, or, under the saving to suito rs cl ause , could procee d outside a dm ir alty .”) See e.g. Sou th ern Pac. Co v. Je nsen, 2 44 U.S. 2 05, 217(19 17) (decide d before the passage of th e L HWCA and holdingthat the decea sed stevedo re’s clai m again st hi s employe r aroseu nder admiraltyj uri sdictio n: “Th e work of astevedor e, in whichth e de cease d was engagin g, i s maritime in its n ature; his e mploy ment was a mariti me co ntract; th e inj uri es whichh e re ceived werelikewise maritime; and the rights and liabilitie s of the parti es in conne cti onth er ewithwe rematt er s cle arlywithina dm ir altyj uri sdiction); See also At la n t ic Trans portC o. v. Imb rovek , 23 4 U .S. 52 , 62(19 14) where a steve dore brou ght cl aims for sl ander again st hi s employe r and a thir d party : (“Th e appropriate basi s of all admiraltyj uri sdictio n, wh eth erinc ontr a cto r to rt , isth e mariti men atureo f th e tr a n sactio no r event
. . .”). 6 i n hi s l aw sui ta gainstB ayou , d i d n ota sser ta cl ai m forv esseln egl i gen ce un der § 9 0 5 (b ). T h e r e fo r e , t h e is s u e n a r r o w s to w h e th e rC a m p b e ll’ s cla im o rs u it
a g a in s t B a y o u fo rt h ir d p a r ty n e g lig e n c e – a c la im r e c o g n iz e d in § 9 3 3

– is a cla im b r o u g h t“ p u r s u a n tt o ” t h e L HW CA. The pr i m ar y pur po s e b e h i n d t he c r e at i o n o f t he LH W CA w as t o pr o vi de
a c o m pe ns at i o n s c he m e f o rl o ngs ho r e m e n a nd o t he rl and b as e d wor ke r s w o r ki ng on or n ea r ve sse l s w h o, b eca u se of th e m a ri ti m e cha ra cter of t h eir em p l oy m en t,
w e r e no tc o ve r e d un de rs t at e w o r ke r ’ s c o m pe ns at i o n s t at ut e s . Adm i r al t y and M a r i t i m e L a w, T h o m a s J
. S c h o e n b a u m 7

- 1
. Be f o r e t h e p a s s a g e o f

t h e L HW CA,
m ar i t i m e w o r ke r s c o ul d a s s e r ta g e ne r alm ar i t i m e l aw c l ai m a ga i ns ta ny p a r ty

– th e ire m p lo y e r s a n d th ir d p a r tie s –s o lo n ga s t h e ircla im s p r o p e r ly
s at i s f i e d t he r e qui r e m e nt s o f a dm i r al t y j ur i s di c t i o n. 2 I n § 9 04 , t he LH W CA m ak e s i tc l e ar t hat t he c o m pe ns at i o n r e m e dy i s t he l on gsh orem an ’ s excl u si ve rem edy againsthi s em pl oyer; yett h e A ctal so m ak es i tcl ea r that t h e l on gsh orem en ’ s hi st ori c generalm ari t i m e l aw cl ai m against th ir d p a r tie s is u n a ffe c te d b y § 9 0 4
. 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 3 3 (a ) r e a d s : If o n a c c o u n t o f a d is a b ility o rd e a th fo rw h ic h c o m p e n s a tio n is pa yab l e u n der t h i s A ct , t h e person enti t l ed t o such co m pen sati on determ i n es t h at som e p erson ot h er than the em pl oyer or a person o rp e r s o n s in h is e m p lo y is lia b le in d a m a g e s , h e n ee d n ot el ectN o. 08- 31206

See also Perez v. Arva Nat ’l Shipping L ine, Lt d. , 46 8F. Supp . 79 9 , 8 0 2 ( S. D.N .Y
. 1 9 7 9), 3 aff’d mem ., 6 2 2 F .2 d 5 7 5(2 d C ir
. 1 9 8 0), aff’d subnom. Ro drig uez v. C ompass Shipping

C o. , 451 U.S. 596(19 81)“[§ 93 3] i s intende d to provide covered employees the ben efits of workmen’s compen satio n, without depriving th em of the right to b e co mpensat ed fo r th ei rinjuries by negligent thir d parties, or elimin atin g the inc entivefor third parties to provide lon gshoremen asafep lacet o wo rk
.. 7 w het her t o r ec ei ve s uch com p en s at i on or t o r ec over dam ag e s ag ai ns t s uc h t hi r d pe r s on. ( e m pha s i s ad de d)
. I n No rfo lk S h ip b u ild ing& D ry d o ck Co rp . v . G a rr is , t he 3 U n it e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t , in d is c u s s in gth e n a t u r e o f t h e lo n g s h o r e m a n ’s
c l ai m agai nstt hi r d par t i es , hel d t hat 33 U
. S. C
. § 933( a) “ expr es sl y prese rves a ll
c l ai m s a ga i ns tt hi r d p ar t i e s . ” 5 32 U
. S. 8 11 , 8 18 ( 20 01 ) ( c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d) (em p h a sis a d d ed ). T h i s cou rt ha s also rec og n i ze d tha t a p erso n en ti tle d to
com p en sa ti on u n d er th e L H W C Acan sti l lpu rsu e a n eg l i ge n ce claim ag a i n st a th ir d p a r ty a n d th a t t h is cla im is n o t cr e a te d b y 3 3 U .S .C
. § 9 3 3 (a ). McL a u rin
v. Nobl e D ri l l i ng Inc. , 52 9 F
. 3d 28 5 , 29 2 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 8 ) (ci tati on s om i tted). In l i g h to f t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h e h o l d i n g s o f t h e s e c a s e s , we t he r e f o r e r e ad § 9 33 a s ha vi ng o ne pur po s e : t o m ak e i tc l e art hatt he l on gshor em an’ s hi st or i c m ar i t i m e t or tac t i on agai nstt hi r d par t i es w as u n af fect ed by t h e provi si on s of t h e L H W C A A ccor di n gl y, C am pb el l ’ s cl ai m or sui tagai nstB ayou i s unaffected b y § 933 of t he LH W C Aand t hus c annot be
c h a r a c t e r iz e d a s a c l a i m o rs u it “p u r s u a n tto ” th e L H W C A E v a n s t o n ’s
e xc l us i o n, t he r e f

o r e , doe s no ta ppl y a nd Eva ns t o n a nd NU FI CP A m us tpr o vi de coverage t o B ayou consi st en tw i t h t h ei r r espect i ve pol i ci es. I V
. A p p e ll e e N U F I C P Aa r g u e s th a ts h o u ld th is c o u r tfi n d E v a n s t o n ’s excl u sio n in a pp l i cabl e t o t h i s c ase, N Y M A G IC ’ s s u brogati on cl ai m fai l s as a m at t e ro f

l aw. Spe c i f

i c al l y, a ppe l l e e s m ai nt ai n t hats i nc e N YM AG I C’ s pa ym e nt of C a m p b ell ’ s cl a i m s w a s p u rely v olu n tary , N Y M A G IC i s n ot su b rog a ted toN o. 08- 31206

The relevant lan gu age states th at NYMAGI C receive d from Bayo u: “Th e a ssign ment, 4 tran sfer, and convey anc e of “anyan d all rights, movableor immov abl e, tangibl e o r intangibl e, that [B ayou] possessed a s plaintiff inth e lit ig at io n to pursue inde mnification from th e remainin g ge neral liab ility and excess umbrellain surers for payment up to the actu al amou nt paidb yNYMAGI Co nb eh alf o f B ayouS te el .” R ec or d, p . 8 0 1
. As the Civil Co de points out , there is no di stinctionbetween assignment of rights and 5 co nve nti o n al s ub r o g ati o n b y th e ob li ge e . L a . C iv . C o d e art 1 8 2 7
. c m t
. ( a)
. Th e C ivil C ode defin es co nvention al subrogatio n byth e obli ge e in art. 182 7: “Anob ligee who r eceive s performance from a third personmay subrogate that person to the rights of th e obli ge e, eve n without th e obli go r’s co nsent. Th at subro gationis subj ect to the rul es governing obligatio n of rights.” Subrogatio n canbeconve ntio nalor legal. I n conventional subrogatio n bythe obli ge e, 6 an obligee who r eceive s perfo rmancef r oma thir d per son maysub rogate that per son to the ri ghtso f th e ob li gee , evenwithout th e ob li gor’sc on se nt. Bayou’s ri ghtsand caus esof ac tio n ithas agai nstit s ins urer s w ho ref use d cover age 7 are no t strictlypersonal
. Th e Civil Co de distinguish es betweenstrictlyper sonal and heritab le obligatio ns. Strictlyper sonal ob ligations are “patri monial in nature [but] ar e so closely co n n ecte d withth e pe rs on alityo f th e deb to r th at th eyca n n otbeex erci se d bythir d pe rs on s. A .N
. Yi a n n op oulo s, Lou isiana Civil Law T reat ise § 1 97 (4thed. 200 1). Exa m ples of strictly person al obligatio ns are ob ligatio ns tofulfilla marria geen ga ge ment, contracts for dancing lesson s, and recor ding contracts betwee n a mu sician and a r ecord company. L a. C iv . C ode art. 1 7 6 6c mt
. (c). See Ki ng v. Ill ino isNat. Ins. Co ., 9 So.3d 780, 7 91 (La . 20 09) (Kimball, J
. dissenting) (“The obligatio n of an insurer to pay damages toit s in sured for b reach of its duties 8 B a y o u ’ s rig h ts a n d th e a s s ig n m e n t B a y o u e x e c u te d in N Y M A G IC ’ s fa v o r is in e ffe c tiv e . W e d is a g r e e . W h en N Y M A G IC f

u n ded a sub st an t i al porti on of t h e set t l em en tbetw een Bayo u a nd Cam pb e l l , t he y r e c e i ve d a n a s s i gnm e ntf r o m Bayo u. Si nc e t he 4 R el eas e an d A ssign m en t A gr ee m en t b etw ee n N YM A G I C and B ayou m akes c l ear t hat t he par t i es c onsen ted to be go ver ned by Loui si ana l aw , N Y M A G I C has
ac qui r e d t he s e ri ght s unde rt he l aw o f c o nve nt i o nals ubr o ga t i o n a nd a s s i gnm e nt
o f r ig h ts
. R e c o r d , p . 8 0 2
.

5 S u b r o g a tio n is “t h e s u b s tit u tio n o f o n e p e r s o n to th e rig h ts o f a n o th e r .” 6 T h e L ou i si an a C i vi lC ode al l ow s great con t ract u alfr eedom in t h e assi gn m en tof
r i ght s , s t at i ng t hata l lr i ght s –s av e f o rs t r i c t l y pe r s o nalr i ght s –m ayb e a s s i gne d. L a. C i v. C ode art. 264 2. Th u s, regardl ess of w h et h er N Y M A G IC i s s u brogated 7N o. 08- 31206

isnotu niqu elyp er so n al toth e in sure r orth e in sure d. ”)
. 9 to B a yo u ’ s ri gh ts a s a m a tter of l a w , th e assign m en t B a yo u ex ecu te d in N YM AG I C’ s fav o re f fe c t i ve l y t r ans fe r r e d B ay o u’ s ri ght s aga i ns tEvan s t o n a nd ot h ers t o N Y M A G IC
. A ccor di n gl y, N Y M A G IC ’ s c l ai m s agai n stapp el l ees are proper.
V
. F or t h e reasons st ated abov e, w e reverse t h e j u dg m en t of t h e di st ri ctcourt
an d rem an d thi s c a se f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs i f necessary an d f

or entr y of j udg m e ntc o ns i s t e ntw i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.
RE VE RS ED A ND R EMANDE D.