Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2023)

Our plain-English summary of Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, March 2, 2023).

Roseanna Matherne was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2021 and died in March 2022. Her survivors sued several defendants, alleging she was exposed to asbestos carried home on the clothes of her husband, who worked at Avondale Shipyards. One defendant was the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA), sued as the statutory obligor for policies issued by Lamorak Insurance Company, which was covered by a Pennsylvania liquidation order. The court had already granted LIGA summary judgment because the claims against it were time barred. LIGA then asked for a Rule 54(b) final judgment so it could appeal right away. The court denied the request. It reasoned that such certification is rare and requires hardship or injustice from delay. The same issue had come up in only three cases in that court, unlike a earlier case with over twenty. The claims against LIGA were also still tied to other issues in the case. Wanting to avoid monitoring the docket was not enough.

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: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: March 2, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 22-2656
• Stage: Other
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court denied LIGA's motion for entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment on the earlier summary judgment in its favor, so LIGA must wait until the whole case ends to appeal; the plaintiffs prevailed on this motion.

What the court held. Rule 54(b) certification of a partial final judgment is granted only rarely, when delay would cause hardship or injustice that immediate appeal would relieve; a dismissed party's wish to avoid monitoring the docket, with claims still intertwined with remaining issues, is not enough.

Issues decided: Insurance Coverage, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Roseanna Matherne (family member): mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) (insurer)
• Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (premises owner)
• Lamorak Insurance Company (insurer)
• Eagle, Inc.
• McCarty Corporation

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (October 28, 2022). The court granted summary judgment for the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) and against the plaintiffs, holding that their claims were not timely 'covered claims' because they arose after the insolvent insurer's claim bar date.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 2, 2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Huntington Ingalls: Huntington need not present a witness, but must give the plaintiffs its litigation listing of prior cases within 14 days.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 19, 2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, so Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its insurers could not use the government contractor defense against the failure-to-warn and failure-to-enact-safety-measures claims.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 19, 2024). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' claims that Avondale assumed its insolvent insurers' obligations under the buy-back agreements; the plaintiffs lost this claim.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 20, 2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment that Roseanna Matherne had mesothelioma and that it caused her death, over the defendants' off-topic oppositions.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (January 24, 2024). The court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' intentional tort, alter ego and manufacturer strict liability claims, ruling against the plaintiffs and Avondale.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (February 21, 2024). The court granted Avondale's motion and quashed the trial subpoenas that Plaintiffs and Defendants General Electric, Foster Wheeler and Paramount Global had directed to Avondale as a corporate entity.

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.

TED J. MATHERNE, SR., ET, AL.

v.

HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, ET AL. SECTION: "J"(2).

Civil Action No. 22-2656.

March 2, 2023.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment in Favor of LIGA (Rec. Doc. 67) filed by Defendant, Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association ("LIGA"). Plaintiffs oppose this motion (Rec. Doc. 69), and LIGA has filed a reply (Rec. Doc. 72). Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Roseanna Matherne was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or around December 1, 2021 and died on March 10, 2022 as a result of the disease. Her survivors subsequently filed suit against numerous Defendants alleging that she contracted mesothelioma caused by her exposure to asbestos from the clothes of her husband who worked at Avondale Shipyards ("Avondale"). LIGA was sued as the alleged statutory obligor for policies issued by Lamorak Insurance Company ("Lamorak"), for the alleged liability of Eagle, Inc., McCarty Corporation, and Avondale's executive officers. LIGA first received notice of this claim on July 19, 2022.

On March 11, 2021, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an Order declaring Bedivere Insurance Company ("Bedivere") to be insolvent, and an accompanying Order of Liquidation. The Order of Liquidation of Bedivere specifically includes Lamorak (formerly OneBeacon America Insurance Company). The Order of Liquidation appointed the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner as the Statutory Liquidator of Bedivere and directed her to "take possession of Bedivere's property, business and affairs. . . and to administer them pursuant to the orders of this Court." The Liquidator was vested by the court with exclusive jurisdiction to determine, among other matters, "the validity and amounts of claims against Bedivere."

Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Liquidator mailed a Notice to policyholders, creditors, Insurance Commissioners, and the National Conference of Insurance Guaranty Funds, and published the claims filing procedure in the newspaper of general circulation where Bedivere had its principal place of business, and in a magazine recognized as a source of news and information for insurance professionals. The Notice provided, in boldface type in the center of the first page, "If you have and want to pursue a claim against BEDIVERE, you must file a proof of claim in order to have your claim considered. Proofs of claim must be filed no later than December 31, 2021."

Plaintiffs filed suit on July 6, 2022 in the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, and Avondale removed the suit to this Court. Subsequently, LIGA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the claims against it were time barred which this Court granted. (Rec. Doc. 57). LIGA then filed the instant Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment. (Rec. Doc. 67). LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to

one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. Rule 54(b) balances two policies: avoiding "piecemeal appeals" and the "danger of hardship or injustice through delay." PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cnty. Waste Water Mgmt. Dist., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996). Thus, the court should consider "whether the claims under review were separable from others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims to be determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals." H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)). A district court should grant certification only when there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal; it should not be entered routinely as a courtesy to counsel. PYCA Indus. Inc., 91 F.3d at 1421. DISCUSSION

There are two prerequisites to certification of a Rule 54(b) judgment. First, the Court must have entirely dealt with one or more claims or parties, and second, there must be no just reason for delay. As to the first requirement, the Court has entirely disposed of all claims against LIGA by granting summary judgment in its favor. (Rec. Doc. 57). However, as to the second requirement, the Court must now address whether there would be some hardship or injustice which necessitates immediate appeal.

Courts should only grant certification of Rule 54(b) final judgments rarely, when an immediate appeal is necessary and there is no reason for delay. They are not meant to be routine. PYCA Indus. Inc., 91 F.3d at 1421. LIGA argues that its motion should be granted because this Court held in LIGA's favor on summary judgment due to a unique prescription defense available only to LIGA as a statutorily created body. (Rec. Doc. 57). Therefore, there is no risk that a later appeal in this case will raise the same issue. Furthermore, LIGA argues that this issue is currently pending in multiple cases, and as LIGA points out, due to the nature of asbestos cases, this is an issue which may continue to arise in future cases. LIGA points to Hulin v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. 2020 WL 7727204 at [*2] (E.D. La. Dec. 29, 2020) in which Judge Vance granted a motion for Rule 54(b) judgment when there were more than twenty cases pending with the same issue. However, unlike in Hulin, the issue raised by LIGA on summary judgment has only come up in three cases in this Court, two of which are in this section. Therefore, this issue is not so prevalent that LIGA will be prejudiced by having to wait until the entire case is complete. Furthermore, as Plaintiffs point out, LIGA is the statutory obligor for policies issued by Lamorak Insurance to Eagle, Inc., McCarty Corporation, and Avondale's executive officers. Therefore, although the exact defense raised by LIGA on summary judgment has been decided, it is still possible that resolution of the claims against one or multiple of these companies may cause any appeal regarding LIGA to become moot. (Rec. Doc. 69, at 5). Although not identical, Plaintiffs' claims against LIGA are still intertwined with other issues remaining in this case.

LIGA asks for certification merely so that it does not have to wait until the end of litigation and monitor the docket to see if an appeal is eventually taken at the close of these proceedings. If this was reason enough to grant certification, then practically every case involving a dismissed party would be considered a final, appealable judgment. See Walker v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co., 304 F.R.D. 486, 949 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2015). See also Fucich Contracting, Inc. v. Shread-Kuyrkendall and Associates, Inc., etal., 2020 WL 2924051 (E.D. La. June 3, 2020). Rule 54(b) judgments are meant to be the exception, not the rule, and the Court can find no danger of hardship of the type required to outweigh the policy preferences against such partial final judgments.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that LIGA's Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment in Favor of LIGA (Rec. Doc. 67) is DENIED.

Sources

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