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

• Author: Brooksie L. Bonvillain
• Position: J.D./D.C.L., 2014, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
• Pages: 327-370

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.A−B.

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.