On July 16, 2021, Frank P. Ragusa, Jr. filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, asserting Louisiana negligence and intentional tort claims against numerous defendants, including Avondale and Avondale’s executive officers.

While employed at Avondale, Ragusa worked as a tacker constructing barges at the Westwego Yard, then later as a crane operator on the deck of a Zapata rig in the Mississippi River.

The situs requirement requires that the injury occur on the “navigable waters of the United States” and “any adjoining pier, wharf, dry dock, terminal, building way, marine railway, or other adjoining area customarily used by an employer in loading, unloading, repairing, dismantling, or building a vessel.” 33 U.S.C. § 903(a); see also Sun Ship, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 447 U.S. 715, 719 (1980) (“In 1972, Congress ... extend[ed] the LHWCA landward beyond the shoreline of the navigable waters of the United States.”).

Its purpose is to strike a balance between employers and longshoremen and harbor workers: “Employers relinquish their defenses to tort actions in exchange for limited and predictable liability.

Finally, Ragusa argues that the LHWCA does not bar Louisiana state law intentional tort claims, and Avondale was aware of the risks associated with asbestos.

The Court having been advised by counsel that the parties have firmly agreed upon a compromise in this matter; IT IS ORDERED that this action be and it is hereby dismissed as to all parties, without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown, within sixty (60) days, to reopen the action if the settlement is not consummated.

In addition, the Court specifically retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement if settlement is not consummated in sixty (60) days.

P. 41(a)(2); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994); Hospitality House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of March, 2023.

Defendant argues that Avondale, as evidenced by its Net Worth Affidavit filed under seal in this matter, is a high net worth insured, and therefore LIGA is not obligated to defend any claims made against Avondale’s Lamorak insurance policy, including those claims targeting the officers.

Plaintiff submits that this Court follow the decisions on similar motions in Legendre v. Lamorak Insurance Company et al., No. 19-14336 (E.D.

In both of those cases, the court denied the motion as to Avondale’s executive officers, and the parties settled their claims after the first day of trial.

Second, considering the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits, a genuine issue remains as to LIGA’s liability arising from Lamorak’s coverage of Avondale’s executive officers.

After a trial, the Court may have a more complete context to evaluate the effect of the parties’ conflicting statutory interpretations of the Net Worth Exclusion.