Orloff v. SAIPEM, INC.
280 F.Supp.2d 620, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15939, 2003 WL 22077450 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsidiary corporation is not liable for torts committed by its parent or sister corporations merely because of the corporate relationship. To disregard the corporate form and impose liability, a plaintiff must show that the form was used deceitfully or as a sham, not simply that the entities are part of a common corporate structure designed to limit liability.
Facts:
- Curtis Orloff, a Louisiana resident and employee of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., was working on a drilling rig in Saudi Arabia in December 2001.
- Orloff sustained severe injuries when a drill collar fell from a forklift onto his leg.
- The rig was owned by Saipem Aban Drilling Co. (Saipem India) and was being operated by Saudi Arabian Saipem, Limited (Saipem Saudi).
- Both Saipem India and Saipem Saudi are subsidiaries or partially-owned affiliates of the Italian parent company, Saipem S.p.A. (Saipem Italy).
- Orloff sued Saipem, Inc. (Saipem Texas), a separate U.S. subsidiary of Saipem Italy.
- Saipem Texas had no direct connection to or involvement in the operation of the drilling rig in Saudi Arabia where the accident occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Orloff filed a lawsuit against Saipem, Inc. (Saipem Texas) in a court of first instance.
- The court permitted discovery, during which Orloff deposed an employee of Saipem Texas.
- Following discovery, Orloff filed a motion to amend his complaint to include a 'related entity theory of liability.'
- The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- The District Court is considering Saipem Texas's motion to dismiss, which it has converted to a motion for summary judgment because evidence outside the pleadings was submitted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship, without evidence that the corporate form was used for deceitful purposes, make a U.S. subsidiary corporation liable for a tort allegedly committed by its foreign parent or sister corporation in another country?
Opinions:
Majority - Hughes, District Judge
No. The existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship alone does not make a subsidiary liable for torts committed by its parent or sister corporations. To disregard the corporate form, the law requires proof that it was used deceitfully. Orloff failed to provide any facts suggesting such an abuse. The court reasoned that limiting liability is the fundamental purpose of incorporation, and creating separate subsidiaries is a legitimate business practice, not evidence of fraud. Orloff merely showed that the Saipem entities were related, shared some directors, and engaged in inter-company transactions, which is typical for a multinational corporation. The court emphasized the separateness of the entities with the analogy: 'The sister in Texas is not her mother in Italy, much less is she her sister in Saudi Arabia.' Since Saipem Texas had no connection to the accident and there was no evidence of corporate abuse, it cannot be held liable for the actions of Saipem Saudi or Saipem Italy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of corporate separateness, often referred to as the 'corporate veil.' It establishes a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold one corporate entity liable for the actions of a related one, especially in a multinational context. The ruling clarifies that normal corporate structures, including the use of subsidiaries to limit liability and streamline international operations, do not constitute the kind of fraud or injustice required to pierce the corporate veil. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to engage in 'jurisdictional shopping' by suing a convenient domestic subsidiary for the alleged torts of a foreign affiliate, thereby forcing them to litigate against the directly responsible party in the appropriate, albeit potentially less convenient, forum.
