Craft v. Crowley Marine Services, Inc. (2024)

Our plain-English summary of Craft v. Crowley Marine Services, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, September 25, 2024).

Climmie Craft sued Crowley Marine Services, formerly Delta Steamship Lines, alleging that she developed asbestos-related lung cancer from asbestos her husband, Jerry Craft, brought home. Mr. Craft had earlier won a final judgment in 2018 in his own case. That judgment found he was occupationally exposed to asbestos while employed by Crowley and James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, and that both were at fault for his mesothelioma. In this case, the trial court relied on that judgment. It sustained Mrs. Craft's res judicata exception, granted partial summary judgment and struck Crowley's defenses on issues already decided. Crowley asked the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal to review that ruling. The court granted the writ and vacated the judgment. It held that Mrs. Craft and her husband were not the same party, and not privies, because she had her own claim and shared only a parallel interest. It also held that her claim did not exist when his judgment became final in July 2018, because she did not discover her lung cancer until about September 27, 2023.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
• Decided: September 25, 2024
• Docket: No. 2024-C-0602
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court of appeal granted Crowley Marine Services' writ application and vacated the trial court's judgment that had sustained Climmie Craft's res judicata exception, granted partial summary judgment and struck Crowley's defenses.

What the court held. Res judicata under La. R.S. 13:4231 requires the same parties (or privies) and a cause of action that existed when the first judgment became final. A wife's later claim did not meet either requirement, because her own claim was separate from her husband's and she discovered her disease after his judgment.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery, Take-Home Exposure.

The people and their exposure

• Climmie Craft (family member): lung cancer

• Jerry Craft: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Crowley Marine Services, Inc. f/k/a Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. (employer)
• James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation (employer)

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Craft v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2019). The appeals court affirmed the $1,600,000 general damages award and the denial of JNOV on negligence against Crowley Marine Services and James J. Flanagan Shipping, but reversed the JNOV that had struck the jury's $1,000,000 future medical expenses award and reinstated that award for Craft.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

CLIMMIE CRAFT,

v.

CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC. F/K/A DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES, INC.

No. 2024-C-0602.

September 25, 2024.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH, NO. 2023-11586, DIVISION "B", Honorable Marissa Hutabarat.

WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT VACATED.

Kevin J. Lavie, Joseph E. Lee, III, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP, Canal Place, Suite 2000, New Orleans, 70130-6534, COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/APPLICANT.

David Ryan Cannella, Christopher C. Colley, Kristopher L. Thompson, Emily C. LaCerte, BARON & BUDD, P.C., 2600 Citibank, Suite 400, Baton Rouge, 70808, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

Court composed of Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge Rachael D. Johnson, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott.

RACHAEL D. JOHNSON, Judge.

Relator Crowley Marine Services, Inc. f/k/a Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. ("Relator") seeks supervisory review of the trial court's August 30, 2024 interlocutory judgment granting an exception of res judicata, motion for partial summary judgment, and/or motion to strike defenses. The trial court sustained the exception of res judicata, granted summary judgment, and struck all defenses concerning any issue that had been actually litigated and determined in Mr. Jerry Craft's ("Mr. Craft") case.[1] On the exception of res judicata, the trial court found:

Under Louisiana R.S. 13:4231, there is issue preclusion as to the 2018 final judgment finding Jerry Craft was occupationally exposed to asbestos while employed by defendants James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation and Crowley Marine Services, Inc., who were both found to be at fault for his exposure and asbestos-related diagnosis of mesothelioma. Accordingly, the exception of res judicata as filed by the plaintiff in this matter is sustained.

In Relator's writ application, Relator alleges that res judicata does not apply because the parties are not the same and the causes of action asserted in the case sub judice did not exist at the time of the final judgment in Mr. Craft's case. Relator further alleges that a res judicata ruling will hinder its ability to argue whether Mr. Craft had significant exposure to asbestos such that the amount he brought home caused Respondent Climmie Craft's ("Respondent") lung cancer. Respondent argues that although res judicata applies under La. R.S. 13:4231, the court's ruling does not prevent Relator from arguing the extent of Respondent's exposure to asbestos through her husband and that Relator owed a duty to Respondent. After reviewing the Relator's application and Respondent's opposition, we grant the Relator's writ.

According to La. R.S. 13:4231, res judicata applies:

(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.

(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.

(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that

judgment.

To succeed on a res judicata claim, the following five elements must be met:

(1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation.

Kimball v. Kamenitz, 21-0101, p. 21 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/26/21), 331 So. 3d 474, 488 (quoting Myers v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of La., 09-1517, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/19/10), 43 So. 3d 207, 211).

Pursuant to the elements outlined in Kimball, the res judicata claim fails. The case does not involve the same parties nor did the cause of action asserted in the Respondent's suit exist at the time of the final judgment in Mr. Craft's case. When evaluating whether the same parties requirement of res judicata is satisfied, the identity of the parties in the first and subsequent action "must at least be in privity with each other." In re Parish, 81 F.4th 403, 415 (5th Cir. 2023). "[A] privy is defined as `one who, after the commencement of an action, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, purchase or assignment.'" Alpine Meadows, L.C. v. Winkler, 49,490, p. 13 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/10/14), 154 So. 3d 747, 757-58 (quoting Five N Company, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 02-0181, p. 16 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/2/03), 850 So. 2d 51, 61). "It is not sufficient to merely show that the party and the nonparty have common or parallel interests in the factual and legal issues presented in the respective actions." Slaughter v. Atkins, 305 F. Supp. 3d 697, 709 (M.D. La. 2018). Respondent and Mr. Craft are not the same party, and there is no privity by way of inheritance, succession, purchase, or assignment. Respondent and Mr. Craft have their own individual claim to asbestos-related exposure and simply because both parties have a common or parallel interest is not sufficient for res judicata to apply.

Further, the cause of action asserted in the case sub judice did not exist at the time of final judgment in Mr. Craft's case. The final judgment in Mr. Craft's case is dated July 10, 2018. Respondent did not discover that she had asbestos-related lung cancer until on or about September 27, 2023.

Accordingly, we grant Relator's writ and vacate the August 30, 2024 interlocutory judgment granting an exception of res judicata, motion for partial summary judgment, and/or motion to strike defenses.

WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT VACTED.

[1] Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Case No. 2017-06069. ("Mr. Craft's Case") The appeal for this case is Craft v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc., 18-0814 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/8/19), 273 So. 3d 517.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Louisiana asbestos laws
• Louisiana asbestos exposure sites