BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS AT LOUISIANA v. JB JAMES CONSTRUCTION (2026)

Appellant, Bellsouth Telecommunications L.L.C. d/b/a AT&T Louisiana, (Bellsouth), appeals from the grant of a summary judgment to Appellee, JB James Construction, L.L.C. (JB James). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises out of damage to an aerial telecommunications cable owned by Bellsouth and caused by JB James. JB James was engaged by the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”) for the Thomas Creek Bridge Project (the “Project”), which involved the repair and construction of a bridge in Jackson, Louisiana. There is no dispute that JB James cut Bellsouth's aerial cable so that it could mobilize equipment it needed to complete the Project.

This matter proceeded to a hearing on August 11, 2025, on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JB James. JB James's argument at its Motion for Summary Judgment was that it qualified for tort immunity under Louisiana Revise Statutes 9:2771 (“Contractor Immunity Statute”). At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of JB James. A judgment in accordance with its ruling was signed on August 18, 2026, dismissing with prejudice Bellsouth's claims against JB James.¹

On appeal, Bellsouth argues that DOTD's specification and plans did not put Bellsouth's aerial cable in conflict with the Project. Rather, Bellsouth's aerial cable merely presented an obstacle for JB James, who determined that different equipment was needed to complete the Project. Bellsouth argues there was no destruction, deterioration, or defect with the Thomas Creek Bridge. In essence, Bellsouth argues that the Contractor Immunity Statute should be strictly construed against JB James and does not apply in this case. JB Janies argues that the trial court did not err in finding the Contractor Immunity Statute applies. It followed DOTD's plans and specifications, including its identification of utilities in the vicinity of the worksite.

Bellsouth asks this court to reverse.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I. The Trial Court erred in concluding that La. R.S. 9:2771 applied to the facts of this case;

II. The Trial Court erred in concluding that JB James established the elements of its immunity defense under La. R.S. 9:2771;

III. The Trial Court erred in holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that prevented disposition of this case on summary judgment.

FACTS

JB James began work on the Project for DOTD in 2020. Specifically, JB James was contracted to repair the northbound span of the bridge and then completely replace the southbound span. After completing the work on the northbound span, the work commenced on the southbound span, where it was discovered that the length of the pilings in the plans and specifications for the southbound span were too short. Accordingly, DOTD approved the use of longer pilings with a change order. JB James explained that this necessitated the use of a larger crane to place the pilings. On July 21, 2021, JB James confirmed that the aerial cables were accounted for and they were “dead.” On July 22, 2021, JB James cut and removed utilities that were in direct conflict with the work after discussions with DOTD. On July 23, 2021, Bellsouth discovered damage to its aerial cable located near US Highway 61 in Jackson, Louisiana.

DOTD's survey department went to the job site to determine what utilities were in the area where the work was to be performed. Another department within DOTD used the information from the survey department to label, on the plans, the utilities within the construction limits of the Project. The plans identified utilities in the rights-of-way along the Project site. It is undisputed that DOTD's plans showed aerial power lines in the portion of the right of way at issue in this case; however, Bellsouth was not among the companies listed as having aerial cables in the Project area. Prior to the start of work on the southside span, when JB James realized that the Project, as shown on the plans, would need a bigger crane to drive the longer pilings, it contacted DOTD again to confirm that the lines that were in the Project's way were accounted for.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations, L.L.C. v. City of Baton Rouge, 2017-1553 (La. App. 1 Cir. 07/18/18), 255 So. 3d 16, 21, writ denied, 2018-1397 (La. 12/3/18), 257 So. 3d 194. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted only if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3) and (4). A genuine issue of material fact is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate. Higgins v. Williams Energy Partner, L.P., 2017-1662 (La. App. 1 Cir. 04/10/19), 280 So. 3d 195, 203, writ denied, 2019-00722 (La. 09/06/19), 278 So. 3d 371. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria governing the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Bonano v. Docar Sales, Inc., 2024-0195 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/22/24), 405 So. 3d 886, 891, writ denied, 2025-00011 (La. 4/1/25), 404 So. 3d 653.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2771 provides, in pertinent part:

No contractor ․ shall be liable for destruction or deterioration of or defects in any work constructed, or under construction, by him if he constructed, or is constructing, the work according to plans or specifications furnished to him which he did not make or cause to be made and if the destruction, deterioration, or defect was due to any fault or insufficiency of the plans or specifications. This provision shall apply regardless of whether the destruction, deterioration, or defect occurs or becomes evident prior to or after delivery of the work to the owner or prior to or after acceptance of the work by the owner. The provisions of this Section shall not be subject to waiver by the contractor.

In general, a contractor owes third parties a duty to exercise ordinary care and refrain from creating hazardous conditions in the fulfillment of its contractual obligations; however, a contractor is not the guarantor of the sufficiency of plans and specifications drawn by another, and if it complies with those plans and specifications, it is entitled to immunity under La. R.S. 9:2771. Morgan v. Lafourche Recreation Dist. No. 5, 2001-1191 (La. App. 1 Cir. 06/21/02), 822 So. 2d 716, 721, writ denied, 2002-1980 (La. 10/25/02), 827 So. 2d 1156. Under the Contractor Immunity Statute, a contractor cannot rely blindly on plans and specifications. To avoid liability, the contractor must prove either that the condition created was not hazardous or that it had no justifiable reason to believe that its adherence to the plans and specifications created a hazardous condition. Id.

There is no immunity, however, when a contractor does not follow plans and specifications provided to him by the owners. Likewise, there is no immunity or protection under La. R.S. 9:2771 when the evidence shows that the defects were not the result of the insufficiency of plans and specifications, but were the result of the quality of the work done by a contractor. Cupit v. Hernandez, 45,670 (La. App. 2 Cir. 09/29/10), 48 So. 3d 1114, 1119, writ denied, 2010-2466 (La. 12/17/10), 51 So. 3d 7. A contractor is not the guarantor of the sufficiency of plans and specifications drawn by another, and if he complies with those plans and specifications, he is entitled to immunity under La. R.S. 9:2771. The issue of whether JB James is statutorily immune under La. R.S. 9:2771 is an affirmative defense that must be proven by JB Janies. See e.g., Richard v. State through DOTD, 610 So. 2d 839, 841 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1992), writ denied, 614 So. 2d 1264 (La. 1993).

Bellsouth relies heavily on Barabay Properties Holding Corp. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., LLC, 2007-2005 (La. App. 1 Cir. 05/02/08), 991 So. 2d 74, 78-79, writ granted, 2008-1185 (La. 10/10/08), 993 So. 2d 1270, and writ denied as improvidently granted, 2008-1185 (La. 03/17/09), 6 So. 3d 172, to support its argument that the Contractor Immunity Statute does not apply herein. In Barabay, the contractor appealed a judgment against it for damages arising from its removal and disposal of excavated soil from the landowner's property during its work on a project. A water line was being placed underground, and excavation of a large amount of soil was necessary. The contract turned on whether the soil was considered “salvage” material, and its disposal thereof. The trial court found that there was evidence to support that the contractor acted wrongfully when it removed the excavated soil. This case however is distinguishable from the instant case. In Barabay there was no evidence finding communication with the Project owner, Jefferson Parish. Had there been evidence that the contractor attempted to communicate with the Owner regarding the designation of the soil, as in the instant case, there would have been a different legal analysis.

In Barabay, this Court did not apply La. R.S. 9:2771 because it determined that the excavated soil removed from the property by Boh Brothers did not ultimately constitute construction material, as it was not incorporated in the “work constructed, or under construction” by Boh Brothers. This Court then stated, “In summary, we conclude that the component activity or process of removing the excavated soil does not constitute “destruction or deterioration of or defects in any work constructed, or under construction,” so as to entitle Boh Brothers to statutory immunity under La. R.S. 9:2771. Had there been evidence that the contractor attempted to communicate with the Project owner, as in the instant case, there would have been a different legal analysis. We find this case unpersuasive.

After our de novo review, we agree with the trial court that the Contractor Immunity Statute applies in the instant case. The evidence JB James submitted in support of the summary judgment motion clearly shows that JB James was in constant communication with DOTD, the owner of the Project. DOTD never told JB James that Bellsouth had or could possibly have live aerial cables in the work. Accordingly, DOTD did not know that Bellsouth had aerial cables in the area.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, submitted the deposition of the JB James Project Manager, Brandon Perault who testified that he tried to contact DEMCO, the listed owner of the aerial cables in Subsection 105.06 of the Standard Specifications for the Project dealing for utilities.² When he could not reach anyone, Perault emailed Dane LeCoq, DOTD's engineer for the project, on February 28, 2020, asking: “Do you have a contact for [DEMCO]? The number in the plans doesn't get me anywhere. I want to verify the overhead powerlines along the SB side are dead. If they are, [I'd] like to get them to remove the abandoned lines before we clear. Let me know.” Josh Cook from DOTD confirmed that the aerial lines were “dead.”

According to Cook, DOTD's lead inspector, it was DOTD's job to determine who owned the cable and to contact the utility company. Cook testified at his deposition that after the aerial cable was cut, he discussed with a Bellsouth contact and according to Cook, the lines were not on the map. Cook further stated that “The guy from [Bellsouth] said there [sic] maps showed the lines aren't in the air till down by the site office.” In fact, the record reveals that Joel Sistrunk, the JB James pile driving foreman that cut the aerial cables, that he and Bellsouth were surprised that the lines were not “dead.” Reno Johnson, the utility coordinator at DOTD, testified that in order for him to verify who owned the cables in question, he relied upon DOTD's plans. Herein, the site plan that was used never identified Bellsouth cables or poles.

Moreover, we note that JB James did not blindly rely on the plans; rather, it followed up with DOTD the day before removing the aerial cable at issue. We note that there is nothing in the record to dispute that it was error when JB James determined longer pilings were needed. Nor was there any indication that DOTD limited JB James's means and methods to complete the work. Nothing in the record suggests that a bigger crane was not necessary to move the Project forward.

JB James was given performance specifications that it did not “make or cause to be made.” See La. R.S. 9:2771. Thus, the “defect was due to ․ fault or insufficiency of the plans or specifications.” See La. R.S. 9:2771. Specifically, DOTD failed to identify the cables surrounding the Project area. The statutory immunity, therefore, applies and relieves JB James of liability based on its approved performance specifications. The evidence JB James’ submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment shows that JB James did not have a justifiable reason to believe that by following DOTD's plans, it would create a risk and breach its duties. See Oxley v. Sabine River Auth., 1994-1284 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/19/95), 663 So. 2d 497, 504, writ denied, 1996-0064 (La. 02/28/96), 668 So. 2d 357, and writ denied, 95-3090 (La. 02/28/96), 668 So. 2d 368.

While Bellsouth asserts that JB James knew or should have known that the type of cable differed than those that were identified on DOTD plans, we decline to broaden the scope of the affirmative tort duty of contractors under Louisiana law. In the instant case, the Contractor Immunity Statute provides a safe harbor to the contractor who strictly adheres to plans or specifications furnished to him when the contractor has no reason to believe that alleged deficiencies contained in such plans and specifications would lead to a dangerous condition. See Caskey v. Merrick Const. Co., 46,886 (La. App. 2 Cir. 03/14/12), 86 So. 3d 186, 192-93, writ denied, 2012-0847 (La. 06/01/12), 90 So. 3d 442.

Since we find that the Contractor Immunity Statute applies, the trial court did not err in finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Bellsouth Telecommunications, L.L.C. D/B/A AT&T Louisiana.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A judgment of partial dismissal was signed on September 15, 2025, dismissing the DOTD from Bellsouth's suit.

2.   Subsection 105.06 of the Standard Specifications for the Project specifically states: “Utility facilities will be removed, relocated, adjusted or abandoned in accordance with agreements between the [DOTD] and utility owners listed below.”

BALFOUR, J.