Slaying the Trojan Horse: Arabie v. CITGO and Punitive Damages Under Louisiana's Conflict-of-Laws Provisions

AuthorBrooksie L. Bonvillain
PositionJ.D./D.C.L., 2014, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Pages327-370
Slaying the Trojan Horse: Arabie v. CITGO and
Punitive Damages Under Louisiana’s Conflict-of-
Laws Provisions
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ......................................................................328
II. Opening the Door to Punitive Damages: A
Comparative Overview of Louisiana Law .......................330
A. Louisiana Law on Punitive Damages .......................330
1. The Louisiana Supreme Court: Closing the
Door to Punitive Damages .................................331
2. The Louisiana Civil Code: Cracking the Door
to Punitive Damages ..........................................331
B. Louisiana Law on Conflict of Laws .........................333
1. Building the Trojan Horse: The Louisiana
State Law Institute’s Projet ...............................335
2. Hidden in the Trojan Horse: Allowing Punitive
Damages Under the Current Conflict-of-Laws
Articles ...............................................................337
III. The Trojan Horse Enters: Arabie v. CITGO
Petroleum Corp. ...............................................................341
A. Sneaking in the Trojan Horse: The Trial Court’s
Award of Punitive Damages .....................................342
B. Grooming the Trojan Horse: The Appellate
Court’s Affirmation of Punitive Damages ...............344
C. Closing the Door to the Trojan Horse: The
Louisiana Supreme Court’s Denial of
Punitive Damages .....................................................348
IV. The Door Ajar: Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts ............353
A. The Continuing Challenge: Evans v. TIN, Inc. .........354
B. Slaying the Trojan Horse: A Legislative Solution
to the Inconsistency in Codal Interpretation .............355
1. Striking the “Injurious Conduct” from
Article 3546 .......................................................355
2. Striking the “Interest Analysis” from
Article 3548 .......................................................358
328 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 74
3. Repealing the “Escape Hatch” Under
Article 3547 .......................................................360
C. Lingering Inside the Gates: Policy Concerns from
Punitive Damages .....................................................362
1. Jurisdiction Jumping: Federal Versus State
Court ..................................................................362
a. The Traditional Plaintiff Preference for
State Courts ..................................................363
b. The Avoidance of a Jury Trial ......................364
2. The Substantive and Procedural Clash:
Consequences of Codal Silence .........................365
a. The Classification of the Availability of
Punitive Damages .........................................365
b. The Classification of the Necessity of a
Jury Trial ......................................................366
c. The Classification of the Standard of
Proof .............................................................367
3. Corporate Exposure: The Result of
Multijurisdictional Business Transactions .........367
4. Louisiana’s Purported Policy Against Punitive
Damages: The Contradiction and the
Clarification .......................................................368
V. Conclusion ........................................................................370
I. INTRODUCTION
Punitive damages are “exotic” in a civil law system,1 and the
Louisiana Civil Code articles on conflict of laws may be acting as a
Trojan Horse,2 sneaking punitive damages into Louisiana’s civil
law.3 Although Louisiana claims to have a strong legislative policy
Copyright 2013, by BROOKSIE L. BONVILLAIN.
1. Dirmeyer v. O’Hern, 3 So. 132, 134 (La. 1887).
2. The Louisiana Legislature’s debate of Senate Bill 646 proposing the
codification of Louisiana’s choice-of-law provisions during the 1990 Legislative
Session raised the concern that the article s could be the “[T]rojan [H]orse”
introducing punitive damages into Lo uisiana law. Letter from Symeon Symeonides,
Committee Reporter, Louisiana State Law Institute Conflicts Projet, to the Louisiana
State Law Institute Conflicts Projet Committee ( Dec. 19, 1990) (on file with the
Louisiana State Law Institute).
3. Louisiana does allow punitive damages in limited statutory exceptions.
See infra Part II.A.2.
2013] COMMENT 329
against punitive damages,4 these articles enable courts to apply
punitive damages laws from other jurisdictions in damages awards
granted in Louisiana.5 When presented with this issue in Arabie v.
CITGO Petroleum Corp.,6 the Louisiana Supreme Court reached the
correct result; however, the lower courts’ analyses7 show how
Louisiana’s conflict-of-laws articles can be misapplied to sneak
punitive damages into Louisiana in similar claims that are still being
tried.8 Such awards generate concerns over inconsistent codal
interpretation, forum shopping, substantive and procedural clashes,
and corporate exposure to damages above and beyond what
Louisiana’s substantive law would typically allow.9 This Trojan
Horse creates the need for legislative clarification of the interaction
among the conflict-of-laws articles governing punitive damages in
order to align awards of punitive damages in Louisiana in
accordance with legislative intent.10
This Comment explains why there is a need to reform Louisiana
law governing multistate tort conflicts. The Louisiana Legislature
needs to amend the conflict-of-laws articles to limit situations in
which courts may award punitive damages outside of Louisiana’s
statutory exceptions.11 Accordingly, Part II of this Comment
summarizes Louisiana’s punitive damages and conflict-of-laws
provisions and compares Louisiana’s provisions to that of other
jurisdictions.12 Part III then traces the path established by Arabie v.
CITGO Petroleum Corp., highlighting the flawed analysis at all
three levels of litigation.13 Finally, Part IV analyzes the Louisiana
courts’ decision-making processes and underlying motives for
awarding punitive damages and then offers a legislative solution to
4. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Upjohn, 409 F. Supp. 453 (E.D. La.
1976); Karavokiros v. Ind. Motor Bus Co., 524 F. Supp. 385 (E.D. La. 1981); see
also Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 89 So. 3d 307 (La. 2012).
5. See infra P arts II.B.2, IV.AB.
6. Arabie, 89 So. 3d 307; Arabie v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 49 So. 3d 529
(La. Ct. App. 2010).
7. See Arabie, 89 So. 3d 307; Arabie, 49 So. 3d 529.
8. See Evans v. TIN, Inc., Nos. 11–2067, 11–2068, 11–2069, 11–2182, 11–
2348, 11–2351, 11–2417, 11–2949, 11–2985, 11–2987, 11–3018, 11–3021, 11–
3048, 11–3049, 12–18, 11–3050, 2012 WL 1499225 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2012);
infra Part V.A.
9. See infra P art IV.
10. See infra Part IV.B.
11. See infra Parts IV.A.2, V.B.
12. See infra Part II.
13. Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 89 So. 3d 307 (La. 2012); Arabie v.
CITGO Petroleum Corp., 49 So. 3d 529 (La. Ct. App. 2010). See infra Part IV.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT