BREAUX v. Travelers Indemnity Company; Kevin Ray Worrell, City of Wilson North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees. (2026)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Edward F. BREAUX, Jr.; Linda Breaux, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Kevin Ray WORRELL; City of Wilson North Carolina; Travelers Indemnity Company, incorrectly named as Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company; Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Defendants—Appellees, Jessie J. Blanchard; Vickie B. Blanchard, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Travelers Indemnity Company; Kevin Ray Worrell, City of Wilson North Carolina, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 24-30097

Decided: September 09, 2026

Before Higginbotham, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Martin Samuel Triche (argued), Sarah Ann Legendre, Martin Samuel Triche, II, Attorney, Law Offices of Risley C. Triche, Napoleonville, LA, for Plaintiffs—Appellants Edward F. Breaux, Jr., Linda Breaux Garrett Joffrion (argued), Steve Joffrion, Prairieville, LA, for Plaintiffs—Appellants Jessie J. Blanchard, Vickie B. Blanchard. Lauren Alaina Camel Begneaud (argued), Caffery, Oubre, Campbell & Garrison, L.L.P., Lafayette, LA, for Defendants—Appellees Kevin Ray Worrell, City of Wilson North Carolina. Barbara Malik Weller, Law Offices of Rebecca Goforth Bush, Metairie, LA, for Defendants—Appellees Travelers Indemnity Company, incorrectly names ad Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. Timothy Patrick Carraway, Cauley Pridgen, P.A., Raleigh, NC, for Amici Curiae ElectriCities of North Carolina, Incorporated, American Public Power Association.

In January 2024, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Kevin Worrell, the City of Wilson, North Carolina, and the City's insurers, holding that Worrell and the City of Wilson were entitled to statutory immunity under Louisiana's Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act (LHSEADA). The Breauxs and the Blanchards appealed, challenging the district court's interpretation of the scope of the Act's immunity provision.

On June 25, 2025, we certified two questions regarding the interpretation of the Act's immunity provision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana:

(1) Is an employee of a city of another state—working under an agreement for emergency assistance between that city and a Louisiana municipality—a “representative” of the State of Louisiana or one of its political subdivisions within the meaning of La. R.S. 29[:]735?

(2) Is an individual providing emergency assistance in Louisiana “engaging in ․ emergency preparedness and recovery activities” under La. R.S. 29[:]735 while commuting from the recovery site to his lodging?1

On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued its opinion in response to our certified questions, holding that Worrell “would not be considered to have been a ‘representative’ of any Louisiana governmental entity ․ for purposes of LHSEADA immunity.”² As “that failure alone disqualifies him for immunity under the statute[,]” the Supreme Court of Louisiana declined to consider the second certified question.³

In light of this decision by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, we REVERSE the district court's judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1. Breaux v. Worrell, 141 F.4th 712, 719 (5th Cir. 2025). The factual circumstances and procedural history of this case are fully recounted in our published opinion certifying the question. Id. at 714–15.

2. See Breaux v. Worrell, 431 So.3d 375, 383–84 (La. 2026).

3. Id. at 384.

Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network