The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's ruling regarding statutory immunity in the case of Breaux v. Worrell. This decision affects how emergency assistance is managed and who is liable in Louisiana. The ruling comes after a complex legal journey involving multiple parties and interpretations of state law.
The case centers around two sets of plaintiffs, Edward F. Breaux, Jr. and Linda Breaux, along with Jessie J. Blanchard and Vickie B. Blanchard. They filed a lawsuit against Kevin Ray Worrell, the City of Wilson, North Carolina, and its insurers after an incident that raised questions about liability under Louisiana law. The plaintiffs argued that Worrell and the City should not be granted immunity under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (LHSEADA).
The dispute began when a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in January 2024. The court ruled that Worrell and the City of Wilson were entitled to statutory immunity under LHSEADA. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, challenging the interpretation of the Act's immunity provisions. The case eventually reached the Fifth Circuit, which sought clarification from the Supreme Court of Louisiana on two key questions regarding the Act.
On June 25, 2025, the Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The first question asked whether an employee of a city from another state, working under an agreement for emergency assistance with a Louisiana municipality, could be considered a “representative” of the State of Louisiana. The second question inquired if an individual providing emergency assistance in Louisiana was engaging in “emergency preparedness and recovery activities” while commuting from the recovery site to their lodging.
On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Louisiana responded to the certified questions. The court ruled that Worrell did not qualify as a “representative” of any Louisiana governmental entity for the purposes of LHSEADA immunity. This key finding indicated that Worrell was not entitled to the protections offered under the Act, as the court stated, “that failure alone disqualifies him for immunity under the statute.” Due to this ruling, the Louisiana Supreme Court chose not to address the second question.
In light of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision, the Fifth Circuit reversed the earlier judgment made by the district court. The court ordered the case to be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the new interpretation of the law. This means that the plaintiffs now have another opportunity to pursue their claims against Worrell and the City of Wilson.
This ruling has significant implications for emergency assistance operations in Louisiana. It clarifies the limitations of statutory immunity under LHSEADA, particularly regarding personnel from other states providing assistance. The decision could influence how cities and their employees engage in emergency preparedness and recovery efforts, especially when they involve cross-state assistance.
The Fifth Circuit's ruling may prompt municipalities to reevaluate their agreements with out-of-state emergency responders. As the legal landscape evolves, cities may need to ensure that their personnel are adequately protected under state laws when responding to emergencies.
Looking ahead, the case may still have further legal developments. The defendants could potentially seek to appeal the Fifth Circuit's ruling. However, details regarding any plans for appeal were not available in the court filing. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further explore the implications of this ruling and the application of LHSEADA.