## Facts

- Emily Blache worked for Dr. Benjamin Pardue primarily as a domestic servant at his residence.
- Blache was injured when she fell at Dr. Pardue’s home while performing household duties.
- Blache asserted she sometimes performed tasks related to Dr. Pardue’s medical practice, such as taking telephone messages for patients, helping locate Dr. Pardue to relay messages, assisting at his clinic on Downman Road, and cleaning an older clinic location before it was sold.
- Dr. Pardue maintained Blache’s work was domestic in nature and that she did not perform services at the Downman Road Clinic or in connection with his medical practice in any meaningful way.
- Blache filed suit asserting tort claims against Dr. Pardue and his liability insurer, Maryland Casualty Company, and alternatively sought workmen’s compensation benefits from Dr. Pardue and Security Insurance Company, the workers’ compensation insurer.
- Security had issued Dr. Pardue a workers’ compensation policy written for the Downman Road Clinic and describing coverage for “Physicians — all employees incl. clerical,” but the policy did not include domestic employment unless domestic work was required to be covered by law or specifically listed in the policy declarations.
- Dr. Pardue and Security moved for summary judgment on the compensation claim, relying on affidavits and the policy language; the trial court granted the motion.
- Blache appealed the dismissal of her workmen’s compensation claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a domestic servant injured while performing household duties at an employer’s home is covered by the Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Act when the servant claims occasional, incidental tasks connected to the employer’s business.
2. Whether a workers’ compensation policy written for a physician’s clinic and excluding domestic employment provides coverage for a household employee injured at the physician’s residence.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Blache’s workmen’s compensation claim.
- The court treated Blache as a domestic employee injured in the course of domestic service, which was not within the class of covered employment under the compensation statute as applied in this case.
- The court held Security’s policy, written for the Downman Road Clinic and containing a domestic-employment exclusion absent statutory requirement or express inclusion, did not cover Blache’s injury at the residence.
- Because the key facts (domestic status, place and nature of injury, and policy scope) left no genuine issue of material fact affecting coverage, summary judgment for Dr. Pardue and Security was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana workmen’s compensation coverage applied to employees in occupations the statute treated as covered (commonly described in the case law as “hazardous” work), and domestic service was not within that coverage absent a basis to treat the work as covered employment.
- An employee’s occasional or incidental assistance related to an employer’s business does not automatically convert a primarily domestic job into covered employment, especially when the injury occurs during domestic duties at the residence.
- A workers’ compensation policy written for a specified business operation and location is read in light of that described risk; coverage for “all employees” is not extended to domestic household help when the policy context and exclusions show the insurer did not assume that risk.
- Where a policy excludes domestic employment unless required by law or specifically scheduled, and the law does not require compensation coverage for domestic servants on the facts presented, the insurer has no compensation obligation to a domestic worker injured at the employer’s home.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when, even taking the claimant’s assertions about occasional additional tasks as true, the statutory and contractual requirements for compensation coverage are not met.

## Conclusion

Blache’s injury occurred while she was performing domestic duties at Dr. Pardue’s home, and the court concluded that neither the Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Act (as applied to domestic service in this setting) nor Security’s clinic-focused workers’ compensation policy extended coverage to her; therefore, the dismissal of her compensation claim on summary judgment was affirmed.


Blache v. Maryland Casualty Co., 283 So. 2d 319 (1973)