Shannon Webb Biggs and Madison Biggs Dependants of Ian E. Biggs v. Southern Lifestyles Development,llc

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

22-463

SHANNON WEBB BIGGS AND MADISON BIGGS,
DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED IAN E. BIGGS

VERSUS

SOUTHERN LIFESTYLES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL.

**********

ON APPEAL FROM THE
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 4
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20-07565
PAULA M. MURPHY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION JUDGE

**********

JONATHAN W. PERRY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Jonathan W. Perry, and Gary J. Ortego, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John J. Rabalais
Jonathan R. Landry
Rabalais Unland, LLP
70779 South Ochsner Boulevard
Covington, Louisiana 70433
(985) 893-9900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Southern Lifestyles Development Company, LLC, and
National Union Fire Insurance Company of PA

W. Alan Lilley
Goforth & Lilley, PLC
109 Stewart Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 237-5777
COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANTS/APPELLEES:
Shannon Webb Biggs and Madison Biggs

Travis R. LeBleu
Maricle & Associates
1 Sanctuary Boulevard, Suite 202
Mandeville, Louisiana 70471
(225) 924-9581
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Global Data Systems, Inc., and
Travelers Casualty & Surety Company

PERRY, Judge.

This is a workers’ compensation claim filed by the widow and dependent child

of Ian Biggs (“Mr. Biggs”). At issue are the findings by the workers’ compensation

judge (“WCJ”) that Mr. Biggs was jointly employed at the time of his death; thus,

Mr. Biggs’s employers are solidarily liable for workers’ compensation benefits

arising from his death.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 28, 2019, Ian Biggs died while piloting a plane that crashed

shortly after takeoff in Lafayette, Louisiana. His wife, Shannon Webb Biggs, and

daughter, Madison Biggs (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Claimants”), filed

a form LWC-WC-1008/Disputed Claim for Compensation (“1008”) against

Mr. Biggs’s alleged employers, Southern Lifestyles Development Company, LLC

(“SLD”) and Global Data Systems, Inc. (“GDS”), along with their respective

workers’ compensation insurance carriers, National Union Fire Insurance Company

of PA, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company. Claimants’ 1008 specifically

alleged:

At the time of the crash, Ian Biggs was paid 1/2 his salary . . . by Global
Data Systems, Inc. (GDS) and 1/2 his Salary by Southern Lifestyles
Development, LLC (SLD). His job was to be on call and pilot the Piper
PA 31T Cheyenne II airplane (N42CV) that was owned by Cheyenne
Partners, LLC (an LLC whose members included GDS & SLD). He
was paid the same salary by SLD and GDS no matter whose employees
or affiliates he was flying or even if he didn’t fly at all. GDS has been
paying widow/dependent child benefits[.]

SLD answered, denying that it employed Mr. Biggs at the time of his death.

GDS answered, admitting that it employed Mr. Biggs and did so jointly with SLD.

GDS further conceded that Mr. Biggs was performing services arising out of and in

the course and scope of his employment at the time of his death.1

Claimants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on September 13,

2021, on the issue of Mr. Biggs’s joint employment by SLD and GDS and on the

issue of each employer’s solidary liability for the payment of workers’ compensation

benefits based on the wages Mr. Biggs received from both SLD and GDS. Claimants

sought to recover benefits calculated on the entirety of Mr. Biggs’s salary received

from GDS and SLD, his joint employers, pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1031(B).

In response, SLD filed a motion for summary judgment on September 20,

2021. Therein, SLD argued: Mr. Biggs was not acting in the course and scope of

his employment with SLD; SLD and GDS were not joint employers of Mr. Biggs;

and Claimants are not entitled to workers’ compensation death benefits from SLD.

After a hearing on the competing motions, the WCJ granted summary

judgment in the Claimants’ favor. In its judgment signed December 2, 2021, the

WCJ indicated that there exists no genuine issue of material fact that GDS and SLD

jointly employed Mr. Biggs on December 28, 2019, and that Mr. Biggs was in the

course and scope of his employment at the time of his death. The WCJ further held

that SLD and GDS, along with their respective workers’ compensation insurers, are

solidarily liable for workers’ compensation benefits due to Claimants arising out of

Mr. Biggs’s death. From this judgment, SLD appeals.

APPELLANT’S ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

SLD is now before this court asserting three assignments of error:

1. The Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in finding that Ian Biggs
was acting in the course and scope of his employment with SLD at
the time of his fatal accident on December 28, 2019.

1
GDS began paying death benefits to Claimants; however, said benefits were calculated
only on the one-half of the wages GDS paid to Mr. Biggs.

2

2. The Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in finding that SLD and
GDS were joint employers of Ian Biggs at the time of his December
28, 2019 accident pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1031

3. The Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in finding that SLD and its
workers’ compensation insurance carrier, National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, are solidarily liable for
workers’ compensation benefits owed to Ian Biggs’ dependents
arising out of his injury and death on December 28, 2019.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT

SLD acknowledges co-owning the airplane Mr. Biggs was piloting at the time

of his death with GDS, but denies jointly employing Mr. Biggs at any point prior to

or on the date of his fatal crash with GDS. SLD argues that GDS was the employer

of Mr. Biggs on December 28, 2019, and that Mr. Biggs was in the course and scope

of his employment with GDS because the flight was scheduled by GDS and all

passengers onboard the airplane at the time of the crash were associated with GDS.

Thus, SLD urges this court to reverse the WCJ’s grant of summary judgment in favor

of Claimants, finding SLD and GSD jointly employed Mr. Biggs and, thus, are

solidarily liable for workers’ compensation benefits arising from his death.

APPELLEES’ POSITION

Claimants argue SLD incorrectly focuses on who scheduled the flight or with

whom the passengers were associated; instead, Claimants emphasize evidence

showing SLD and GDS paid Mr. Biggs equally to be on call, to schedule flights, and

to fly the airplane which SLD and GDS co-owned. Thus, Claimants urge this court

to uphold the WCJ’s grant of summary judgment.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Appellate courts review de novo the ruling of the workers’ compensation

judge granting summary judgment. Gibson v. Shaw Global Energy Servs., 04-547

(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/27/04), 885 So.2d 707, writ denied, 04-2920 (La. 2/4/05), 893

So.2d 876. Appellate courts use the same criteria applied by trial courts to determine

3

whether summary judgment is appropriate. Succession of Holbrook, 13-1181

(La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 845. Summary judgment procedure is favored and shall be

construed “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

action.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2). A motion for summary judgment will be

granted “if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no

genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(3).

The party seeking summary judgment must show that no genuine issue of

material fact exists. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(D)(1). “[I]f the movant will not bear

the burden of proof at trial,” he need not “negate all essential elements of the adverse

party’s claim,” but he must show “that there is an absence of factual support for one

or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim.” La.Code

Civ.P. art. 966(D)(1). If the movant meets his initial burden of proof, the burden

shifts to the adverse party “to produce factual support sufficient to establish the

existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

Our review of the evidence reveals Claimants presented the affidavit of

Charles E. Vincent (“Mr. Vincent”), majority stockholder and former Chief

Executive Officer of GDS. Therein, Mr. Vincent attested, in pertinent part:

2. [GDS and SLD] entered into an agreement for joint use of an
airplane, on an as-needed basis, with each company being responsible
for payment of one-half of the fixed costs associated with the operation
of the plane, including the salary and benefits paid to the pilot, Ian
Biggs.

3. Each entity was obligated to pay one-half of Mr. Biggs’s salary and
benefits, no matter how many hours the plane was used by either entity
in any given week or month or other time period.

4. The obligation of each entity to pay one-half of Mr. Biggs’s salary
and benefits, was not based on any percentage of use attributable to
either entity in any given time period.

4

5. Mr. Biggs’s salary and benefits were paid jointly each month by
these entities, whether he flew or not.

....

7. The scope of Mr. Biggs’s joint employment required him to pilot the
plane at the time and to the destination as directed by [GDS or SLD] as
the case may be.

In addition, attached to Mr. Vincent’s affidavit is an email dated August 21, 2017,

directed to Mr. Biggs, Rodney Savoy, and Robert Daigle,2 wherein Mr. Vincent

details the agreement between GDS and SLD for the joint use of the plane and joint

employment of Mr. Biggs. In relevant part, Mr. Vincent’s email states, “All fix cost

would be paid 50/50 at the time due; examples would be Insurance, Ian’s salary,

Upgrades, etc.”

Claimants also presented the affidavit of Lyndsay Degeyter (“Ms. Degeyter”),

Human Resource Supervisor for GDS, which declared her personal knowledge of

the joint employment of Mr. Biggs by GDS and SLD prior to and on December 28,

2019. Therein, Ms. Degeyter declared, in pertinent part:

Ian Biggs was co-employed by [GDS and SLD] in 2018 and 2019, and
these companies made decisions about all aspects of Mr. Biggs’s
employment in tandem and by agreement, each having the right of
direction and control over Mr. Biggs’s employment activities, and each
being responsible for and having paid one-half of Mr. Biggs’s wages
and benefits.

Also, attached to Ms. Degeyter’s affidavit are copies of business records, such as tax

documents indicating wages paid to Mr. Biggs from GDS and SLD, as well as emails

exchanged from late-December 2017 to January 4, 2018, between Ms. Degeyter and

an SLD representative which details an agreement by GDS and SLD to increase

Mr. Biggs’s salary by ten percent, effective January 1, 2018.

2
Messrs. Savoy and Daigle are members/managers of SLD.

5

In opposition, SLD submitted the affidavit of Rodney L. Savoy, a

member/manager of SLD. Therein, Mr. Savoy attested, in pertinent part:

3. At the time of the December 28, 2019 crash in Lafayette, Louisiana,
the . . . aircraft involved in the crash was owned by Cheyenne Partners,
LLC.

....

5. In 2015, Cheyenne Partners, LLC was formed by Charles Vincent
as sole member. Subsequently, SLD Aircraft, LLC obtained a 50%
ownership interest in the Aircraft to satisfy [SLD]’s aircraft needs.

6. Thereafter, the operations, equipment choice, maintenance, pilot
training, and piloting of the Aircraft continued to be handled entirely
by Charles Vincent (100% owner of Eagle Air, LLC) and [GDS] pilot,
Ian Biggs.

7. Beginning in 2015, SLD, LLC, its members, its employees, and/or
its business guests, would use the Aircraft on an as-needed basis.
Likewise, [GDS], its employees, and/or its guests, would use the
Aircraft on an as-needed basis, but such use was always separate from
any use by SLD, LLC, its members, employees and guests.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1031(B) provides:

In case any employee for whose injury or death payments are due
is, at the time of the injury, employed and paid jointly by two or more
employers subject to the provisions of this Chapter, such employers
shall contribute to such payments in proportion to their several wage
liabilities to the employee; but nothing in this Section shall prevent any
arrangement between the employers for different distribution, as
between themselves, of the ultimate burden of such payments. If one
or more but not all of the employers are subject to this Chapter, then the
liability of such of them as are so subject shall be to pay that proportion
of the entire payments which their proportionate wage liability bears to
the entire wages of the employee; but such payment by the employers
subject to this Chapter shall not bar the right of recovery against any
other joint employer.

Simply stated, La.R.S. 23:1031(B) requires that when an employee is paid jointly by

two or more employers, the employers shall contribute to workers’ compensation

payments in proportion to the wages which each employer paid to the employee.

6

Claimant’s evidence confirms Mr. Biggs received an equal salary from and

rendered the same piloting services to SLD and GDS. Thus, Mr. Biggs is presumed

to be an employee of both. See La.R.S. 23:1044.

Joint employment requires a “common enterprise that contemplates the

employment and control of the claimant by one of the interested parties for the

benefit of all.” Kahl v. Baudoin, 449 So.2d 1334, 1336 (La.1984) (quoting

Babineaux v. Southeastern Drilling Corp., 170 So.2d 518, 529 (La.App. 3

Cir. 1965), writ denied, 247 La. 614, 172 So.2d 700). SLD and GDS benefited from

having a plane and a pilot at half the cost. Thus, considering the evidence and the

law, we find there are no genuine issues of material fact, and Claimants are entitled

to summary judgment as a matter of law. SLD and GDS were joint employers of

Mr. Biggs and, as such, are solidarily liable to Claimants for workers’ compensation

benefits arising from his death.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The costs

of this appeal are assessed against Defendant/Appellant, Southern Lifestyles

Development, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

7