Portrait of Francis J. Barry, Jr.

Francis J. Barry, Jr.

Partner

Portrait of Francis J. Barry, Jr.
  • Overview
  • Insights
  • Experience
  • News
fbarry@deutschkerrigan.com
New Orleans, LA — 504 593 0642
Download my vCard

Francis J. Barry, Jr. is an experienced maritime and energy litigator with notable successes in cases involving maritime property damage, marine insurance indemnity, and maritime insurance coverage claims.

Frank has also achieved successful outcomes in insurance broker errors and omissions cases, and in oil and gas litigation involving Legacy Oil, onshore blowouts and operating agreement disputes, among other issues. With more than 30 years of experience, his reported cases include the seminal cases on gas balancing and preferential rights in mineral law in Louisiana, Fina Oil & Chemical Co. v. Amoco Production Co., 673 So.2d 668 (La.App. 1 Cir. May 10, 1996) and Amoco Production Co. v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co., 670 So.2d 502 (La.App. 1 Cir. Feb. 23, 1996).

Frank also handles large-loss fire litigation involving both admiralty and non-maritime issues, and clients regularly seek Frank’s advice on maritime contractual matters such as charter parties, bills of lading, contracts of affreightment and transportation-related issues. He is a former President and Chairman of the Admiralty Law Institute at Tulane University and also served for many years as Chairman of the Program Committee for the Admiralty Law Institute’s continuing legal education (CLE) program.

    • Tulane University (J.D., 1973)
    • Tulane University (B.A., 1970)
    • Jesuit High School (1967)
    • Tulane University (J.D., 1973)
    • Tulane University (B.A., 1970)
    • Jesuit High School (1967)
    • All Louisiana State Courts
    • All Louisiana Federal Courts
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • The Supreme Court of the United States
    • All Louisiana State Courts
    • All Louisiana Federal Courts
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • The Supreme Court of the United States

  • The Maritime Law Association of the United States
    Proctor

    Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute

    The Admiralty Law Institute at Tulane University Law School
    Past President
    Former Planning & Program Committee

    Federal Bar Association

    Louisiana State Bar Association
    House of Delegates, Former Member

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel

    Association of Average Adjusters, London
    Annual Subscriber

    Association of Average Adjusters of the U.S.

    Mariners Club of New Orleans

    The Maritime Law Association of the United States
    Proctor

    Southeastern Admiralty Law Institute

    The Admiralty Law Institute at Tulane University Law School
    Past President
    Former Planning & Program Committee

    Federal Bar Association

    Louisiana State Bar Association
    House of Delegates, Former Member

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel

    Association of Average Adjusters, London
    Annual Subscriber

    Association of Average Adjusters of the U.S.

    Mariners Club of New Orleans

    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

    • "The Best Lawyers in America" List, 2009-present

    • Louisiana Super Lawyers, 2007, 2010-present

    • New Orleans Magazine's "Top Lawyers" List, 2012, 2014, 2017-2018

    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

    • "The Best Lawyers in America" List, 2009-present

    • Louisiana Super Lawyers, 2007, 2010-present

    • New Orleans Magazine's "Top Lawyers" List, 2012, 2014, 2017-2018

  • Tulane Admiralty Law Institute 50 Year Reunion Program Committee Member

    Louisiana Landmarks Society

    Louisiana Historical Society

    Round Table Club of New Orleans

    The Federalist Society

    Louisiana Commandery of The Military Order of Foreign Wars, Former Commander

    Thomas More Law Association

    Louisiana Lawyers For Life

    U.S. Naval Institute

    Tulane Admiralty Law Institute 50 Year Reunion Program Committee Member

    Louisiana Landmarks Society

    Louisiana Historical Society

    Round Table Club of New Orleans

    The Federalist Society

    Louisiana Commandery of The Military Order of Foreign Wars, Former Commander

    Thomas More Law Association

    Louisiana Lawyers For Life

    U.S. Naval Institute

  • Marquette Transportation Co. v. Louisiana Machinery Co., 367 F3d 398 (5th Cir. 2004) (engine room fire)

    Watters et al. v. Department of Social Services et al., 849 So.2d 724 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (defending against class action bodily injury claims of "toxic mold" in high-rise office building, and insurance coverage issues)

    Steel Coils, Inc. vs. M/V Lake Marion, 2002 AMC 1680 (E.D. La. 2001) aff'd 331 F3d 422 (5th Cir. 2003) (charterer's legal liability)

    Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Capt. Nicholas, et al., 197 FSupp. 2d 560 (E.D. La. 2002) (defense of charterer's legal liability)

    Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. vs. American International Investment Corp., 292 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (commercial litigation, Trade Secrets Act, Unfair Trade Practices Act, civil law resolutory condition)

    In Re Iowa Fleeting Service, Inc., 211 FSupp. 2d 794 (M.D. La. 2002) (marine salvage claims)

    Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association, Ltd. vs. M/V Queen of Leman, 296 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (maritime liens)

    Brooks Well Servicing, Inc. v. Cudd Pressure Control, 850 So 2d 1027 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) and 796 So.2d 66 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2001) (onshore well blowout)

    The Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. Ltd v. M/V Flora, 1999 AMC 1569 (E.D. La. 1999),aff'd 235 F3d 963 (5th Cir. 2000) (representing Mitsubishi cargo interests on board M/T Formosa Six in collision)

    Nissho Iwai Corp. v. M/V Joy Sea, 2002 AMC 1305 (E.D. La. 2002) 1999 WL 970335 (E.D. La. 1999) (cargo claim forum selection and arbitration)

    Dickson Marine, Inc. et al. v. Panalpina, Inc. et al., 961 F. Supp. 947 (E.D. La. 1997), affirmed 179 F3d 331 (5th Cir. 1999) (defending claims against brokers/agents, repair companies for capsizing of oil and gas lifeboat off African east coast, agency and jurisdictional issues)

    Egorov, Puchinsky, Afanasiev & Juring et al. v. Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey et al., 183 F3d 453 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims of interference with contract against vessel owner's maritime counsel)

    American Marine Corp. vs. Barge American Gulf III, 1999 AMC 2596 (E.D. La. 1999) (exclusion of government survey report)

    Williams v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.C.C., 1998 AMC 1300 (E.D. La. 1998) (marine P&I coverage of sexual harassment claims)

    Amoco Production Co. v. Fina Oil and Chemical Corp., 670 So.2d 502 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1996) (oil and gas balancing contract)

    Kanematsu (USA) Inc. v. M/V Hua Guang, 1996 WL 764106, 1996 AMC 2845 (E.D. La. 1996) (cargo damage)

    In Re: Trygg Hansa Ins. Co. Ltd., 896 F. Supp. 624 (E.D. La. 1995) (jurisdiction to take discovery for foreign court)

    Cadawas v. Skibs Storli Bergin, 630 So.2d 289 (La. App. 5th Cir.1993) (product liability-jurisdiction)

    In Re Waterman S.S. Corp. (M/V Stonewall Jackson), 1992 AMC 2658, 1992 AMC 2665 (E. D. La. 1992) (Limitation; Removal of DOHSA actions), 1993 AMC 1494, 1501 (E.D. La. 1992)

    Deutsche Shell Tanker v. Placid Refining Co., 767 F.Supp. 762 (E.D. La. 1991), 993 F.2d 466 (5th Cir.1993) (general average)

    Albany Ins. Co. v. Anh Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1991) (marine hull insurance)

    C. Itoh & Co. (USA) Inc. v. M/V Hans Leonhardt, 719 F. Supp. 479 (E.D. La. 1989) (cargo damage)

    Delta Commodities Inc. v. M/T Jo Oak, 1990 AMC 820 (E.D. La. 1989) (allision with pier)

    Hillman v. Marcello Ins. Agency, 1989 AMC 1365 (La. 17th JDC and 1st Cir. Ct. App. La. 1989) (marine hull insurance)

    Reeled Tubing Inc. v. M/V Chad G, 794 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1986) (cargo damage; pre-judgment interest)

    Associated Dredging Co. v. Continental Marine Towing, 617 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. La. 1985) (sinking)

    Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's v. Glacier General Assurance Co., 604 F. Supp. 1443 (E.D. La. 1985), 633 F. Supp. 428 (E.D. La. 1986) (marine insurance)

    State of Louisiana, ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 564 F. Supp. 729 and 524 F. Supp. 1170 (E.D. La. 1983) (cargo claims in collision)

    All Commodities Supplies Co. v. M/V Acritas, 702 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1983) (cargo damage)

    Candies Towing Co. v. M/V B&C Eserman, 673 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1982) (sinking)

    Bank of New Orleans and Trust Co. v. O/S Tracy Marine, 455 F.Supp. 78 (W.D. La. 1978) (maritime liens)

    European - American Banking Corp. v. M/S Rosaria, 486 F. Supp. 245 (S.D. Miss. 1978) (maritime liens)

    Alamo Chemical Transp. Co. v. M/V Overseas Valdez, 398 F. Supp. 1094 (E.D. La. 1975) (collision) 
     

    Marquette Transportation Co. v. Louisiana Machinery Co., 367 F3d 398 (5th Cir. 2004) (engine room fire)

    Watters et al. v. Department of Social Services et al., 849 So.2d 724 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (defending against class action bodily injury claims of "toxic mold" in high-rise office building, and insurance coverage issues)

    Steel Coils, Inc. vs. M/V Lake Marion, 2002 AMC 1680 (E.D. La. 2001) aff'd 331 F3d 422 (5th Cir. 2003) (charterer's legal liability)

    Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Capt. Nicholas, et al., 197 FSupp. 2d 560 (E.D. La. 2002) (defense of charterer's legal liability)

    Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. vs. American International Investment Corp., 292 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2002) (commercial litigation, Trade Secrets Act, Unfair Trade Practices Act, civil law resolutory condition)

    In Re Iowa Fleeting Service, Inc., 211 FSupp. 2d 794 (M.D. La. 2002) (marine salvage claims)

    Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association, Ltd. vs. M/V Queen of Leman, 296 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (maritime liens)

    Brooks Well Servicing, Inc. v. Cudd Pressure Control, 850 So 2d 1027 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) and 796 So.2d 66 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2001) (onshore well blowout)

    The Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. Ltd v. M/V Flora, 1999 AMC 1569 (E.D. La. 1999),aff'd 235 F3d 963 (5th Cir. 2000) (representing Mitsubishi cargo interests on board M/T Formosa Six in collision)

    Nissho Iwai Corp. v. M/V Joy Sea, 2002 AMC 1305 (E.D. La. 2002) 1999 WL 970335 (E.D. La. 1999) (cargo claim forum selection and arbitration)

    Dickson Marine, Inc. et al. v. Panalpina, Inc. et al., 961 F. Supp. 947 (E.D. La. 1997), affirmed 179 F3d 331 (5th Cir. 1999) (defending claims against brokers/agents, repair companies for capsizing of oil and gas lifeboat off African east coast, agency and jurisdictional issues)

    Egorov, Puchinsky, Afanasiev & Juring et al. v. Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey et al., 183 F3d 453 (5th Cir. 1999) (claims of interference with contract against vessel owner's maritime counsel)

    American Marine Corp. vs. Barge American Gulf III, 1999 AMC 2596 (E.D. La. 1999) (exclusion of government survey report)

    Williams v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.C.C., 1998 AMC 1300 (E.D. La. 1998) (marine P&I coverage of sexual harassment claims)

    Amoco Production Co. v. Fina Oil and Chemical Corp., 670 So.2d 502 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1996) (oil and gas balancing contract)

    Kanematsu (USA) Inc. v. M/V Hua Guang, 1996 WL 764106, 1996 AMC 2845 (E.D. La. 1996) (cargo damage)

    In Re: Trygg Hansa Ins. Co. Ltd., 896 F. Supp. 624 (E.D. La. 1995) (jurisdiction to take discovery for foreign court)

    Cadawas v. Skibs Storli Bergin, 630 So.2d 289 (La. App. 5th Cir.1993) (product liability-jurisdiction)

    In Re Waterman S.S. Corp. (M/V Stonewall Jackson), 1992 AMC 2658, 1992 AMC 2665 (E. D. La. 1992) (Limitation; Removal of DOHSA actions), 1993 AMC 1494, 1501 (E.D. La. 1992)

    Deutsche Shell Tanker v. Placid Refining Co., 767 F.Supp. 762 (E.D. La. 1991), 993 F.2d 466 (5th Cir.1993) (general average)

    Albany Ins. Co. v. Anh Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1991) (marine hull insurance)

    C. Itoh & Co. (USA) Inc. v. M/V Hans Leonhardt, 719 F. Supp. 479 (E.D. La. 1989) (cargo damage)

    Delta Commodities Inc. v. M/T Jo Oak, 1990 AMC 820 (E.D. La. 1989) (allision with pier)

    Hillman v. Marcello Ins. Agency, 1989 AMC 1365 (La. 17th JDC and 1st Cir. Ct. App. La. 1989) (marine hull insurance)

    Reeled Tubing Inc. v. M/V Chad G, 794 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1986) (cargo damage; pre-judgment interest)

    Associated Dredging Co. v. Continental Marine Towing, 617 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. La. 1985) (sinking)

    Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's v. Glacier General Assurance Co., 604 F. Supp. 1443 (E.D. La. 1985), 633 F. Supp. 428 (E.D. La. 1986) (marine insurance)

    State of Louisiana, ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 564 F. Supp. 729 and 524 F. Supp. 1170 (E.D. La. 1983) (cargo claims in collision)

    All Commodities Supplies Co. v. M/V Acritas, 702 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1983) (cargo damage)

    Candies Towing Co. v. M/V B&C Eserman, 673 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1982) (sinking)

    Bank of New Orleans and Trust Co. v. O/S Tracy Marine, 455 F.Supp. 78 (W.D. La. 1978) (maritime liens)

    European - American Banking Corp. v. M/S Rosaria, 486 F. Supp. 245 (S.D. Miss. 1978) (maritime liens)

    Alamo Chemical Transp. Co. v. M/V Overseas Valdez, 398 F. Supp. 1094 (E.D. La. 1975) (collision) 
     

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan celebrates 100 years of legal leadership across Louisiana and the Gulf Coast

  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.