BATON ROUGE, La. – An offshore drilling contractor wants a lawsuit filed against it by a former employee who claims he was exposed to asbestos and it is the cause of his lung cancer heard in federal court.
Defendant Ensco Offshore LLC filed its removal notice in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
In its 11-page notice, Ensco, which is now Valaris Limited after a 2019 merger with Rowan Companies, argues the lawsuit does not belong in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Ensco contends complete diversity exists between the parties.
Complete diversity “requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.”
Plaintiff William Loftin, in his January filing with the lower court, admits he is a Mississippi citizen. Meanwhile, Ensco claims it is a citizen of Delaware and Texas.
Ensco also argues that the allegations against it concern maritime and admiralty claims for damages that allegedly occurred “on the navigable waterways” of the U.S. in the Gulf of Mexico.
“As such, this Court has original jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime claims,” the removal notice states.
Loftin, in his lawsuit, alleges that during maritime employment with Ensco and other companies he was exposed to asbestos aboard vessels.
He claims he was diagnosed with small cell carcinoma of the lung in October 2025.
“Plaintiff asserts claims sounding in negligence and unseaworthiness under the general maritime law and the Jones Act, and seeks damages for past, present, and future physical and mental pain and suffering and medical expenses,” Ensco’s notice states.
According to Ensco’s filing, Loftin’s counsel produced certified medical records and itemized medical billing records from his providers via email June 12.
The company claims the itemized billing records reflect past medical charges “well in excess” of $225,000, including a single inpatient hospitalization billed at $80,084.95 and individual chemotherapy sessions billed at $59,763.97 and $59,892.24, together with $7,496.00 in charges from the Hattiesburg Clinic and additional charges from Jackson Pulmonary Associates.
“These documented past medical specials exceed the jurisdictional threshold, and when combined with Plaintiff’s claims for future medical care and general damages, the amount in controversy plainly exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” the notice states.
In federal court, the “amount in controversy” refers to the monetary value of a plaintiff’s claim. This must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for diversity jurisdiction.
Louisiana law prohibits plaintiffs from including a specific monetary amount of damages in their petitions; however, it also requires plaintiffs to allege if their claims are less than the requisite amount to establish federal jurisdiction.
“Plaintiff’s Petition does not state that the damages sought are less than the requisite amount to establish diversity jurisdiction,” Ensco’s notice states.
Kean Miller LLP in New Orleans is representing Ensco in the action.
