Reported / Citable
Background
Edward and Linda Breaux and Jessie and Vickie Blanchard brought claims against Kevin Worrell, the City of Wilson, North Carolina, and the City’s insurers. Worrell, a City employee, had provided emergency assistance in Louisiana under an agreement between the City and a Louisiana municipality.
In January 2024, the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Worrell and the City were protected by statutory immunity under Louisiana’s Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court concerning whether Worrell qualified as a governmental “representative” and whether commuting from a recovery site to lodging constituted covered emergency activity.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The Louisiana Supreme Court had answered the first certified question by holding that Worrell was not a “representative” of Louisiana or any Louisiana political subdivision for purposes of the Act’s immunity provision.
Because that conclusion alone disqualified Worrell from statutory immunity, the Louisiana Supreme Court did not address whether he was engaged in emergency preparedness and recovery activities while commuting to his lodging. Applying the state court’s authoritative interpretation of Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit directed the district court to proceed consistently with that ruling.
Key Takeaways
- An out-of-state municipal employee providing emergency assistance under an intergovernmental agreement is not necessarily a “representative” of Louisiana or one of its political subdivisions under the Act.
- Worrell’s failure to satisfy the statute’s representative requirement defeated the asserted immunity without regard to whether his commute qualified as emergency-related activity.
- The reversal removes the statutory-immunity basis for summary judgment and returns the consolidated cases to the district court for further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision limits reliance on Louisiana’s disaster-response immunity by employees of out-of-state municipalities. An emergency-assistance agreement with a Louisiana municipality does not, by itself, make such an employee a representative of a Louisiana governmental entity.
The ruling also illustrates the importance of state-law certification in federal litigation: the Louisiana Supreme Court’s answer resolved the controlling immunity issue and required reversal of the federal district court’s judgment.