Opinion ID: 50752
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is there a conflict of laws?

Text: The contract between Cain and WST contained a provision specifically recognizing WST as a statutory employer of Carson’s employees.5 Under Louisiana law, a written contract between a principal and contractor recognizing the principal as the statutory employer of the contractor’s employees is valid and enforceable.6 As a result, under Louisiana law, WST is immune from civil tort liability.7 4 See Schneider Nat’l Transport v. Ford Motor Co., 280 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 5 The provision provided that: The Owner, Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Inc., (as principal employer) and the Contractor (as direct employer) mutually agree that it is their intention to recognize the Owner as the statutory employer of the employees of the Contractor while such employees are providing work and/or services to the Owner under this Agreement/Contract. 6 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1061(A)(3). Louisiana law provides, in pertinent part: Except in those instances covered by Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, a statutory relationship shall not exist between the principal and the contractor’s employees . . . unless there is a written contract between the principal and a contractor which is the employee’s immediate employer or his statutory employer, which recognizes the principal as a statutory employer. 7 See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:1032. 4 However, unlike Louisiana, Mississippi law does not recognize and will not enforce any contractual provision seeking to give tort immunity to a principal who is sued by a contractor’s employees unless the principal has the legal obligation under the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) to secure compensation for that contractor’s employees.8 Under Mississippi law, an owner is not a statutory employer, and thus, has no obligations under the Act.9 As a result, since WST was the owner of the electric power line, it is not a statutory employer of Cain under Mississippi law and is not immune from liability.10 Accordingly, there is a substantive difference between Louisiana and Mississippi law necessitating a choice-of-laws determination.