gets.primecure.net

Category: General Insurance Dispute Information

  • The Foundations of Louisiana Law: Where Our Rules Come From

    Dynamic illustration of the Louisiana State Capitol and golden scales of justice over law books, symbolizing Louisiana’s unique blend of legislation and custom in its Civil Law systemWhat is Law in Louisiana? More Than Just Written Words

    Have you ever wondered what makes something a “law” in Louisiana? It might seem like a simple question, but understanding the true sources of our legal rules is crucial for navigating everyday life and protecting your rights. In Louisiana, a unique legal system rooted in the civil law tradition, the answer is a fascinating blend of official pronouncements and long-standing practices. Today, we’ll break down the fundamental concepts found in Louisiana Civil Code Articles 1, 2, and 3, which together explain where our laws originate.

    The Primary Source: Legislation – The Will of the People (CC 1 & 2)

    At its core, Louisiana law primarily comes from legislation. Civil Code Article 2 tells us that “Law is a solemn expression of legislative will.” What does this mean in plain English? It means that the most important and common way laws are created in Louisiana is through our elected representatives in the state legislature. When they debate, vote on, and pass a bill, and it’s signed into law by the Governor, that’s a “solemn expression of legislative will.”

    Think of it this way: our society decides on rules and policies, and the legislature is the body we entrust to formally write those rules down. These written laws – statutes, codes, and ordinances – are the backbone of our legal system. They cover everything from how contracts are formed to how property is owned, and they are the guiding principles that courts use to resolve disputes.

    The Secondary Source: Custom – Unwritten Rules with Legal Power (CC 1 & 3)

    While legislation is the primary source, it’s not the only one. Civil Code Article 1 states that the sources of law are “legislation and custom.” This brings us to a fascinating aspect of civil law: the role of custom.

    Civil Code Article 3 explains that “Custom results from practice repeated for a long time in conformity with a rule of policy, peace, or order.” Essentially, if people in a community consistently act in a certain way over a significant period, and this practice is generally accepted as the correct way to do things – promoting peace, order, or a specific policy – that custom can actually attain the force of law. However, there’s a critical condition: custom only has the same authority as legislation when it is not in conflict with legislation.

    This means that if a written law exists on a particular matter, custom cannot override it. Custom fills the gaps where legislation is silent or helps interpret the intent behind a written law. For example, local business practices, specific ways of handling transactions within an industry, or long-standing community traditions might be considered custom if they meet these strict requirements.

    Why This Matters to You

    Understanding these foundational principles is not just for lawyers; it’s vital for every citizen. Knowing that law comes from both explicit legislative acts and, in some cases, established customs, helps you:

    • Understand Your Rights and Responsibilities: Knowing where laws come from empowers you to better understand the rules that govern your life, your property, and your interactions with others.
    • Navigate Disputes: Whether you’re dealing with a contract issue, a property dispute, or any other legal challenge, identifying the applicable law – be it a statute or an established custom – is the first step toward resolution.
    • Engage with the Legal System: It demystifies the legal process, showing that laws aren’t just arbitrary rules, but expressions of collective will or long-accepted practices.

    Need Legal Guidance? Contact Us Today.

    The intricate details of Louisiana law can be complex. If you have questions about a specific legal matter, or if you believe your rights might be affected by legislation or custom, don’t hesitate to seek professional legal advice. Our experienced team is here to help you understand your situation and navigate the legal landscape. Contact us today for a consultation.

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles: The Two Pillars of Louisiana Law: Legislation & Custom Explained (CC Arts. 1-3)

    and

    Who’s Responsible When a Step Collapses?

  • Power Lines and Damaged Crops: Who Pays When Farming Meets Infrastructure?

    The following case revolves around the intersection of farming and infrastructure development, and the legal implications when construction activities impact agricultural land.

    Case Background

    Lanie Farms, a sugarcane and soybean farming operation, sued CLECO Power and its contractor, Highlines, for damages caused during the construction of new power lines across the farmland. Lanie Farms claimed that the construction activities damaged their crops and required costly remediation efforts. The trial court ruled in favor of Lanie Farms, awarding them $38,000 in damages. However, Lanie Farms appealed, arguing the award was insufficient. CLECO and Highlines also appealed, claiming the court should have dismissed the case.

    Legal Issues

    The case raised several key legal issues:

    • Measure of Damages: How should the damages to the crops be calculated – based on the gross value of the lost crops or the net value after deducting expenses?
    • Involuntary Dismissal: Did Lanie Farms present sufficient evidence to support their claims and avoid dismissal of their case?
    • Contractual Obligations: Did the servitude agreement between CLECO and the landowners create an obligation for CLECO to pay for damages to Lanie Farms’ crops?

    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and addressed each of these issues:

    • Damages: The court acknowledged that while gross value is often used in pre-construction negotiations, this case was different. The court found that the net value, which accounts for expenses, was a more accurate reflection of the actual losses suffered by Lanie Farms.
    • Involuntary Dismissal: Although Lanie Farms primarily argued negligence, they also presented evidence of a contractual obligation by CLECO to pay for damages. The court found this sufficient to deny the motion for involuntary dismissal.
    • Contractual Obligations: The court confirmed that the servitude agreement created a “stipulation pour autrui” – a benefit for a third party (Lanie Farms). This meant CLECO was contractually obligated to compensate Lanie Farms for crop damage caused by their construction activities.

    Key Takeaways

    • Servitude Agreements: When granting servitudes for infrastructure development, landowners and lessees should carefully consider provisions for potential crop damage and ensure clear language regarding liability and compensation.
    • Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses play a crucial role in determining damages, especially in complex cases involving crop valuation and remediation costs.
    • Contractual vs. Negligence Claims: Even when negligence is alleged, the existence of a contractual obligation can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the $38,000 damage award. This case demonstrates the importance of contractual agreements in determining liability for crop damage caused by infrastructure development. It also highlights the court’s discretion in assessing damages and the weight given to expert testimony.

  • Subrogation Rights Upheld: Insurer’s Claim Prevails Despite Settlement

    In the realm of insurance claims and legal disputes, the concept of subrogation often plays a crucial role. Subrogation allows an insurer, after paying a claim to its insured, to step into the insured’s shoes and seek reimbursement from the party responsible for the loss. But what happens when the insured settles their claim directly with the at-fault party? Does the insurer lose its right to subrogation? A recent Louisiana Court of Appeals case, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. David Scott Burkett, et al., sheds light on this issue.

    The Accident and the Claim:

    The case stemmed from a car accident where Katherine Burkett, insured by Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, collided with Jessica Hall, insured by Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. Farm Bureau paid Hall $5,000 for medical expenses under her policy and became subrogated to her claim for that amount.

    The Settlement and the Lawsuit:

    Hall later sued the Burketts and Shelter for her injuries. However, before Farm Bureau could intervene, Hall settled her claim with Shelter for $53,500. Farm Bureau, unaware of the settlement, filed a separate lawsuit against the Burketts and Shelter to recover the $5,000 it had paid to Hall.

    The Trial Court’s Decision:

    The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, stating that Hall’s settlement released them from any further liability, including Farm Bureau’s subrogation claim.

    The Court of Appeals’ Reversal:

    The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. It emphasized that Farm Bureau had notified Shelter of its subrogation claim well before Hall’s settlement. This prior notice prevented the defendants from using the settlement as a shield against Farm Bureau’s claim. The court highlighted that a subrogated insurer has an independent right to pursue reimbursement from the at-fault party, even if the insured has settled their claim.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Timely Notice is Key: Insurers must promptly notify the at-fault party’s insurer of their subrogation interest. This notice protects the insurer’s right to reimbursement, even if the insured later settles their claim.
    • Subrogation is an Independent Right: Subrogation is not dependent on the insured’s actions. An insurer can pursue its subrogation claim even if the insured has settled their claim, as long as the at-fault party was previously notified of the subrogation interest.
    • Understanding Solidary Obligations: In Louisiana, when multiple parties are liable for the same debt, they are considered solidary obligors. This means the creditor (in this case, Farm Bureau) can seek full payment from any of the liable parties.

    The Louisiana Farm Bureau case serves as a crucial reminder for insurers to be proactive in protecting their subrogation rights. Timely notice to the at-fault party is essential to ensure that a subsequent settlement between the insured and the at-fault party does not extinguish the insurer’s right to reimbursement.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Subrogation: Insurance Ruling Upholds Third-Party Fire Damage Claims and Read the Fine Print, Louisiana Court Finds Company Falls With Subrogation Waiver

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Insurer’s Position in Uninsured Motorist Claim Dispute

    In a recent ruling, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed a trial court’s decision denying Amanda Bertrand’s claim for penalties and attorney fees against her underinsured/uninsured motorist (UM) insurer, Progressive Security Insurance Company. The case stemmed from a dispute over the timeliness of Progressive’s payment following Ms. Bertrand’s demand for the limits of her UM coverage.

    Ms. Bertrand was injured in a car accident in 2012. The at-fault driver’s insurance company, Farm Bureau, tendered its policy limits of $15,000 in early 2013. Subsequently, Ms. Bertrand notified Progressive, her UM insurer, of the accident and demanded payment of her $15,000 UM policy limits.

    Progressive received Ms. Bertrand’s demand letter but requested an additional medical record from her treating physician. Upon receiving this record, Progressive promptly issued payment. However, due to a communication issue, Ms. Bertrand’s attorney indicated that the payment had not been received, leading Progressive to stop the initial payment and reissue it.

    Ms. Bertrand’s attorney then raised concerns about the language on the reissued check and accompanying release document, suggesting they constituted a conditional tender rather than the unconditional tender required by law. Progressive assured Ms. Bertrand’s counsel that the tender was unconditional.

    Ms. Bertrand eventually negotiated the check but later filed a lawsuit against Progressive, claiming they failed to issue an unconditional tender within the statutory timeframe and seeking penalties, attorney fees, and costs.

    The Court of Appeal focused on two key issues:

    1. Satisfactory Proof of Loss: The court determined that Progressive did not receive a satisfactory proof of loss until it received the additional medical record from Ms. Bertrand’s physician. This record was crucial in confirming the extent of Ms. Bertrand’s injuries and their relation to the accident.

    2. Unconditional Tender: The court concluded that Progressive’s subsequent communication clarifying the unconditional nature of the payment constituted an unconditional tender.

    Furthermore, the court addressed procedural objections raised by Ms. Bertrand regarding the evidence presented by Progressive. It determined that Progressive’s submissions complied with the relevant legal requirements.

    Based on its analysis, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing Ms. Bertrand’s claims against Progressive. It held that Ms. Bertrand failed to prove that Progressive’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, which is necessary to recover penalties and attorney fees.

    This case highlights the importance of clear communication and complete documentation in insurance claims, particularly when dealing with UM coverage. It emphasizes the insurer’s right to request additional information to assess the claim’s validity and the insured’s obligation to provide a satisfactory proof of loss. Additionally, the ruling underscores the necessity of demonstrating an insurer’s bad faith to recover penalties and attorney fees.

    Additional Sources:AMANDA BERTRAND VERSUS PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuits: Court of Appeals Awards Bad Faith Damages Against Insurance Company Who Refused to Pay and Bad Faith Insurance Claim Dismissed Due To Waiting Too Long To File

  • Unexpected Acceleration or Failure to Yield? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case

    In personal injury law, car accidents at intersections are all too common. However, the case of Trapp v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company brings a unique twist: the claim of a sudden, unexpected vehicle malfunction. This Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating all aspects of an accident before assigning fault, especially when a vehicle defect may have contributed.

    The case arose from an accident at an intersection in Louisiana. Mr. Trapp was entering the highway from a gas station parking lot when his truck collided with Mr. Martin’s truck. While Mr. Trapp was cited for failure to yield, Mr. Martin claimed his truck suddenly accelerated out of control, preventing him from avoiding the collision.

    The trial court initially granted summary judgment, finding Mr. Martin 100% at fault. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, stating that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding comparative fault and the potential for a third party (the vehicle manufacturer) to be at fault.

    The Court of Appeal emphasized that summary judgment is only appropriate when there’s no genuine dispute about any material facts. In this case, Mr. Martin’s consistent testimony about his truck’s sudden acceleration raised questions about whether the accident was solely his fault. The court noted that while an expert couldn’t reproduce the malfunction, this didn’t negate Mr. Martin’s claim.

    Additionally, the court considered Mr. Trapp’s statement to the investigating officer that he believed Mr. Martin had time to slow down. This suggested Mr. Trapp might have incorrectly assumed Mr. Martin would yield, even though the law required him to yield when entering the highway.

    The court concluded that these disputed facts warranted a trial to determine each driver’s degree of fault and whether any third party, such as the vehicle manufacturer, might also be liable.

    Things to Consider: 

    • Sudden Acceleration Claims: While rare, claims of sudden unintended acceleration can complicate car accident cases. It’s essential to thoroughly investigate such claims and consider all potential contributing factors.
    • Comparative Fault: Louisiana follows a comparative fault system, meaning fault can be apportioned between multiple parties, including drivers and potentially even vehicle manufacturers.
    • Summary Judgment Requires No Disputed Facts: Summary judgment is only appropriate when there’s no genuine dispute about critical facts. These issues must be resolved at trial if there are conflicting accounts or evidence.

    The Trapp decision reminds us that assigning fault in car accidents isn’t always straightforward. Factors like potential vehicle malfunctions and the actions of both drivers must be carefully considered.

    If you’ve been involved in a car accident, seeking legal advice from an experienced personal injury attorney is crucial. They can help you investigate the accident, identify all potentially liable parties, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

    Additional Sources: JEFFREY TRAPP, ET AL. VERSUS ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND JOHN R. MARTIN

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Car Accidents: Can a Prior Insurance Lawsuit Affect Your Personal Injury Claim?  and Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

  • When Does an Insurance Contract End? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Dispute Over Coverage Extension

    In the complex world of insurance coverage disputes, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly examining factual issues before granting summary judgment. The case involved a personal injury lawsuit and a subsequent dispute over insurance coverage. The appellate court’s ruling is a stark reminder that seemingly straightforward cases can hinge on nuanced contractual interpretations and disputed facts.

    The case originated from a 1998 accident where Bobbie Sanders, an employee of Mark A. Robicheaux, Inc., was injured while working on a vessel constructed by Swiftships, Inc. Sanders sued Swiftships, which, in turn, filed a third-party demand against its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company, claiming coverage under a policy issued to Robicheaux.

    The crux of the dispute was whether Swiftships qualified as an additional insured under Robicheaux’s policy, even though the initial contract between the two companies had expired. Swiftships argued that the business relationship continued under the original contract’s terms, while United Fire contended there was no agreement to extend the contract.

    The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Swiftships, but this was later overturned on appeal due to procedural errors. On remand, the trial court again ruled for Swiftships, ordering United Fire to pay defense costs. Both parties appealed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and vacated the subsequent judgment, awarding defense costs to Swiftships. It emphasized that summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact. In this case, there was an apparent dispute about whether the original contract between Swiftships and Robicheaux had been extended and, if so, whether its terms, including the insurance coverage provisions, still applied.

    The court stressed that the trial court’s role in a summary judgment motion is not to weigh evidence or make credibility determinations but to identify whether any genuine factual disputes exist that require a trial. By granting summary judgment, the trial court had effectively decided these disputed facts, which was an error.

    The Sanders case highlights several critical points:

    • Contractual Interpretation Matters: The outcome of insurance coverage disputes often hinges on the interpretation of contracts and agreements. It’s vital to carefully review all relevant documents and consider potential ambiguities.
    • Summary Judgment is Not Always Appropriate: Even when a case seems straightforward, underlying factual disputes can preclude summary judgment. Courts must be cautious not to usurp the jury’s role in resolving such conflicts.
    • The Importance of Appealing Procedural Errors: The initial summary judgment in favor of Swiftships was overturned on appeal due to procedural errors. This underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

    The Sanders case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in insurance coverage disputes and the critical role of the courts in ensuring a fair resolution. If you’re involved in a dispute with your insurance company or agent, seeking legal advice is crucial. An experienced attorney can help you navigate the legal landscape, protect your rights, and fight for the coverage you deserve.

    Additional Resources: BOBBIE J. SANDERS, JR. VERSUS SWIFTSHIPS, INC.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Insurance Disputes: Injured Pedestrian in Ouachita Parish Unable to Recover from Multiple Insurance Policies and How Is Coverage Divided When Multiple Insurance Policies Are Involved?

  • How Is Coverage Divided When Multiple Insurance Policies Are Involved?

    If you are involved in an automobile accident, it can be difficult to navigate insurance claims and coverage. The situation becomes even more complicated when there are multiple insurance policies involved. How is coverage allocated between multiple relevant insurance policies?

    Sonya Theriot was unfortunately in an automobile accident in Lafayette, Louisiana. The other driver involved in the accident, Todd Sparks, was working for Thermal Technologies at the time of the accident. He was driving a rental car Thermal Technologies had paid for when he rear-ended Theriot while she was making a right-hand turn. 

    Thermal Technologies had a business automobile insurance policy with State Farm, a commercial general liability policy, and an umbrella insurance policy with Owners Insurance. Sparks had a personal automobile insurance policy with Travels Home Insurance Company. Theriot filed a lawsuit against State Farm, Sparks, and Thermal Technologies. She later added Travelers and Owners to the lawsuit. 

    The parties disputed how to rank the multiple insurance policies involved. Travelers and State Farm both claimed their policies only provided excess coverage. They claimed Owners’ commercial general liability policy provided primary and excess coverage. Owners claimed its commercial general liability policy did not provide any coverage her, but its umbrella policy provided coverage. 

    Theriot filed for declaratory judgment to determine the rank and coverage of the various involved insurance policies. The trial court declared Travelers provided primary coverage, State Farm provided secondary coverage, and Owners provided excess coverage. State Farm filed an appeal, arguing it was not the second layer of coverage because the policies had “other insurance” clauses that should require the other insurers to share coverage pro rata. 

    “Other insurance” clauses define an insurer’s responsibility and how liability should be divided when there is other applicable insurance coverage. Under a pro rata “other insurance’ clause, the insurers divide the responsibility among themselves. When the words of an insurance contract, including “other insurance” clauses, are clear, courts must interpret the contract as written. See La. C.C. art. 2046 and 2047. 

    Here, the Owners commercial general liability policy included an explicit exclusion for damages resulted from a car accident and did not cover rented vehicles like the one involved in the accident. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s holding that the commercial general liability policy provided coverage but affirmed affirmed the trial court’s judgment that Owners was liable for excess coverage. 

    Given the multiple “other insurance” clauses in the various insurance policies, the court tried to find an interpretation that would reconcile the various clauses. The appellate court disagreed Travelers had primary coverage and State Farm had secondary coverage. Rather, the appellate court found under La. R.S. 22:1296, which applies to coverage for rental cars, both policies provided primary coverage. Therefore, the appellate court allocated liability pro rata between Travelers and State Farm, based on their respective policy limits.

    This case illustrates the complexities that can arise in dividing coverage when multiple insurance policies are involved.  A good attorney can help you navigate these complexities so you receive the coverage to which you are entitled.

    Additional Sources: Sonya Theriot v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Insurance Policy Coverage: Understanding Recovery in Excess of Insurance Coverage in Car Accident Cases in Louisiana

  • Insurance Coverage Turns On Distinction Between Flood Damage And Mechanical Issue

    Dealing with the aftermath of a flood is never fun. This is especially true when the flood damages one of your vehicles. This is the situation Michael Jacobs found himself in after one of his cars was damaged in a flood. After a long fight with his insurance company, he eventually prevailed and was awarded damages. 

    Jacobs owned multiple vehicles that GEICO insured. His parish in North Louisiana was affected by heavy flooding. When the flooding started, Jacobs and his brother tried to move the vehicles from his house to higher ground but were unable to remove them before the floodwaters rose, so they could not drive up to the house. Jacobs waded through the floodwater to retrieve one of the vehicles, a 2001 Honda Accord. In the days following the flood, the Honda kept overheating. Jacobs claimed this had only occurred after the flood. 

    Jacobs submitted a claim to GEICO for the damage to the vehicle. The insurance inspector did not identify any flood-related problems and determined the upper radiator hose had blown out. Another mechanic gave Jacobs an opinion and concluded there were issues with his spark plugs. GEICO ultimately denied Jacobs’ claim because it had suffered a mechanical failure that was not flood-related. Jacobs filed a lawsuit against GEICO, alleging his Honda had been damaged from the flooding. At trial, the court ruled the Honda had suffered water damage and awarded vehicle property damages and attorney fees. GEICO filed an appeal.

    On appeal, GEICO argued the trial court erred in finding it was liable because the relevant insurance policy had not been provided as evidence. The trial court record indicated GEICO had not raised issues related to insurance coverage at trial. GEICO had also not objected to letters it had sent to Jacobs recognizing “flood damage” insurance being entered as evidence. Therefore, the assumption at trial was Jacobs had flood damage coverage but not coverage for mechanical issues with the vehicle. An appellate court will generally not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Costello v. Hardy. As a result, the appellate court held that the insurance policy was not introduced as evidence did not make the ruling wrong.

    GEICO also argued the trial court erred in finding the flood had damaged the Honda. The appellate court pointed to conflicting testimony at trial from different witnesses about the cause of the Honda’s damage.  An appellate court can only overturn a trial court’s factual finding if it is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. See Cole v. State, Dept. of Public Safety and Corr. The trial court appeared to have found the witness who testified the flooding had caused the Honda’s damage to be more credible. Because there was nothing clearly wrong or erroneous in the trial court’s finding, the appellate court did not disturb the trial court’s finding.

    As seen here, although GEICO initially denied Jacobs’ claim, Jacobs prevailed at trial. If you feel like your insurance company has improperly denied a claim, an experienced attorney can advise you on possible legal remedies. 

    Additional Sources: Michael J. Jacobs v. GEICO Indemnity Co.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Insurance Coverage for Flood Damage: Homeowners Recover Full Amount of Wood Floor Damages, and Home Insurance Company is Sanctioned for Delay

    Dealing with Flood Damaged Property? Be Prepared to Show Causation

  • Management Company Not Qualified As Additional Insured In Cleaning Company’s Insurance Policy

    It can be challenging to interpret insurance policies, especially when they involve complex provisions such as coverage for an additional insured. Before signing an insurance policy, it is imperative to understand its language and what it does and does not cover. Here, the plain language of the insurance policy proved instrumental in the appellate court’s ruling.

    Pamela Sloane was injured while working for Integrity Cleaning Services (“Integrity”) at Forestwood Apartments. She was cleaning a ceiling fan while standing on a ladder. She inadvertently touched an exposed wire, which electrocuted her, and she fell from the ladder. Sloane filed a lawsuit against CLK Multifamily Management (“CLK”) and others. Sloane claimed CLK had not adequately maintained the premises or warned of the dangerous condition of the exposed wire. CLK filed its answer to the lawsuit, denying the allegations, and added Travelers Indemnity (“Travelers”) to the lawsuit.  CLK claimed Integrity was contractually required to have a general liability insurance policy that covered CLK as additional insureds. 

    Travelers filed a summary judgment motion, claiming CLK was not an additional insured under the policy. Travelers attached a copy of the relevant insurance policy to its summary judgment motion. CLK disagreed and claimed it was indeed an additional insured.  The trial court concluded CLK was not qualified as an additional insured and granted Travelers’ summary judgment motion. 

    An insurance policy is a contract interpreted using general contractual interpretation rules.   Under La. C.C. art. 2045, the court’s role is to determine the parties’ common intent.  To do so, courts look first at the insurance policy’s language. See La. C.C. art. 2046. Here, CLK had the burden of proving the applicable insurance policy covered it because it was the party claiming to be covered by the insurance policy. 

    The court analyzed the additional insured provision of the insurance policy. While CLK and Travelers did not disagree that Integrity had agreed to have its insurance cover CLK as an additional insured, they disputed the scope of coverage and whether CLK qualified.  In interpreting the plain language of the insurance policy, the court concluded the policy only applied to CLK when Integrity would have been vicariously liable for something Integrity had done or had failed to do. 

    In this case, Sloane’s allegations would have involved something CLK had independently done or failed to do, not an act or omission of Integrity. Given the circumstances of Sloane’s injuries involving the exposed wire, Integrity could not be liable for her injuries, such as if Integrity had not properly trained Sloane how to clean a ceiling fan.  Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of Travelers’ summary judgment motion.

    As seen in this case, it was insufficient for CLK to confirm the insurance policy had an additional insured provision. Instead, CLK needed to read and understand the specific requirements for applying the provision. An experienced insurance claim attorney can help advise you on insurance policies so you know what the policy does and does not cover. 

    Additional Sources: Pamela Sloane v. Forestwoods Apartments/Baton Rouse, LTD., CLK Multifamily Management, LLC and Aspen American Ins. Co.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Insurance Coverage: Understanding Insurance Exclusions: A Case of Property Damage Coverage for Borrowed Cars

  • Who’s At Fault if your car is stolen then involved in a wreck? The Thief, Victim, or Third Party Owner? (One Judges Dissenting Opinion)

    In the legal system, dissenting opinions, i.e., opinions delivered by one or more judges who disagree with the decision, play a crucial role in shaping the interpretation and application of the law. They provide valuable insights into alternative viewpoints, often sparking discussion and debate and ultimately leading to the evolution of jurisprudence. One such notable dissenting opinion can be found in the case of Christopher Blanchard v. Demetrius J. Hicks et al., authored by Justice Cooks. In this blog post, we look at the case, the arguments made in the dissent, and the importance of dissent in the legal landscape.

    The case of Christopher Blanchard v. Demetrius J. Hicks et al. arose from an incident in which Officer Blanchard’s patrol car was struck by a stolen truck. The plaintiff, Officer Blanchard, alleged that the defendant, Demetrius J. Hicks, was negligent in leaving his vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition and the engine running, thereby facilitating the theft that led to the accident.

    The majority of the court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decision in Racine, which held that leaving keys in a vehicle does not create liability for the motorist if a thief steals the car and causes injury to a third party. However, Judge Cooks dissented from the majority’s opinion, arguing that Racine does not dispose of the factual matter at hand.

    Judge Cooks pointed out that Racine’s circumstances differed from the present case. The vehicle was not parked on a public street or roadway in Racine. Thus, it did not fall under the scope of the statute that prohibits leaving a motor vehicle unattended without stopping the motor, locking the ignition, and removing the key. Conversely, in the present case, the stolen vehicle was parked on a public roadway with the keys in the ignition and the engine running.

    Judge Cooks disagreed with the majority’s reliance on prior cases, such as Roach v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Berlochaux v. Employers Mutual of Wausau, and Call v. Huffman. These cases, according to the dissent, did not involve a violation of the statute in question and were not directly applicable to the current matter.

    Judge Cooks also emphasized that the law on this issue was far from settled. He argued that a duty/risk analysis should be conducted to determine whether Hicks’ actions breached the duty imposed by the statute and contributed to Officer Blanchard’s injuries. This, he argued, should be decided by a fact finder after a full trial on the merits.

    Judge Cooks stressed modern principles of negligence and comparative fault, suggesting that Hicks may bear some degree of comparative fault for his negligent behavior in leaving his keys in the car on a public road, making it easy for a thief to steal the vehicle and cause harm to others. He argues that the statute has always emphasized its purpose of preventing theft. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle had a duty to prevent the theft of his vehicle and, in breach of that duty, owed some degree of comparative fault to the plaintiff.

    Dissenting opinions such as Judge Cooks’ play a crucial role in the legal system. They offer alternative interpretations and analyses of the law, providing a dissenting view that can shape future legal developments. Judge Cooks sheds light on the case’s complexity by raising important questions about the applicability of previous precedents and emphasizing the need for a duty-risk analysis.

    This case is a prime example of the importance of dissenting opinions in the legal system. Judge Cooks’ dissent challenges the majority’s reliance on prior cases and calls for a comprehensive analysis of the applicable law. The dissent encourages critical discussion that can influence future decisions and contribute to the ongoing development of the law. As the legal landscape evolves, dissents will remain essential to the judicial process, ensuring a robust and dynamic legal system.

    Additional Sources: APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 257,487

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Liability: Who’s At Fault if your car is stolen then involved in a wreck? The Thief, Victim, or Third Party Owner?

    Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog Writer: Oprah Jerome 

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Car Accidents: A Life-Altering Car Accident Ignites a Legal Feud