gets.primecure.net

Category: Insurance Dispute

  • Understanding How Louisiana Laws Are Interpreted: Clear Language vs. Purpose

    Bronze scales of justice engraved with the words Clarity and Purpose, balanced on a polished wooden desk inside a law library with the Louisiana State Capitol visible through an arched window.Have you ever read a law and wondered what it truly means? Or found yourself facing a situation where a rule seemed to apply — but its exact implications were unclear?

    In Louisiana, our legal system is based on the civil law tradition, meaning that interpretation depends heavily on the Louisiana Civil Code. Understanding how courts interpret laws helps citizens, businesses, and legal professionals navigate their rights and responsibilities with confidence.

    Two key provisions — Article 9 and Article 10 of the Louisiana Civil Code — explain how our courts approach clear laws versus ambiguous ones.

    The Golden Rule: When the Law Is Crystal Clear (Civil Code Article 9)

    At its core, Louisiana law values clarity and precision.

    Louisiana Civil Code Article 9 provides the guiding principle:

    Art. 9. Clear and unambiguous law
    When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written, and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.

    Think of it like following a recipe: if it says “Add two cups of flour,” there’s no debate — you add two cups.

    Similarly, when a law’s language is straightforward, the courts must apply it exactly as written. Judges and attorneys don’t speculate about what lawmakers meant — they apply what the law says. This principle ensures predictability, stability, and transparency, allowing citizens to understand their legal obligations simply by reading the text.

    When Things Get Fuzzy: Interpreting Ambiguous Laws (Civil Code Article 10)

    But what if the law’s meaning isn’t so clear?

    Sometimes legislation uses complex terms, appears inconsistent, or leaves room for interpretation. That’s where Louisiana Civil Code Article 10 comes into play:

    Art. 10. Language susceptible of different meanings
    When the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.

    Using our recipe analogy again: if it says “Add a pinch of seasoning,” that’s subjective. You’d interpret “a pinch” based on the purpose of the dish — whether it’s sweet or savory.

    In the same way, when Louisiana courts interpret ambiguous laws, they look to the purpose of the statute — the reason it was enacted and the broader legal framework it fits within. Judges may review legislative history, context, and the societal problem the law was meant to solve.

    Why These Interpretation Rules Matter to You

    These two articles — Article 9 and Article 10 — form the foundation of how Louisiana judges interpret the law. They affect real-world outcomes in cases involving:

    • Contracts

    • Property rights

    • Family disputes

    • Personal injury

    • Business obligations

    Here’s why they matter:

    • Predictability: When laws are clear, you can confidently act knowing what’s required.

    • Fairness: Ambiguities are interpreted consistently, ensuring justice and legislative intent.

    • Protection: Understanding how courts read laws helps you better advocate for your rights.

    Together, these rules create balance — applying laws strictly when clear, and flexibly when interpretation is necessary for fairness and purpose.

    Navigating Louisiana Law with Confidence

    Understanding how laws are read and applied is essential for anyone interacting with Louisiana’s legal system. While the plain meaning rule (Article 9) ensures consistency, the purpose-based rule (Article 10) ensures justice when clarity is lacking.

    If you’re unsure how a specific law affects your situation, don’t guess — get guidance from experienced professionals.

    Need Legal Guidance?

    At Berniard Law Firm, our attorneys are deeply familiar with Louisiana’s Civil Code and its interpretation principles.

    📞 Contact us today for a consultation to discuss how Articles 9 and 10 might impact your case. We’re here to help you navigate the law with clarity, confidence, and care.

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Legal Matters: Did the Son Have the Right to Lend Dad the Company Truck?

    and When Accidents Happen: The Limits of a Homeowner’s Liability for a Child’s Injury

  • When Accidents Happen: The Limits of a Homeowner’s Liability for a Child’s Injury

    A tragic accident involving a young boy with autism has raised questions about the legal responsibility of homeowners when someone is injured on their property. The case of Justin Stollenwerck v. Robert Schweggman, Jr., et al. explores the boundaries of a homeowner’s duty of care, especially when the injured party is the guest of a tenant. This blog post examines the case details and the court’s ruling, shedding light on the complexities of premises liability law.

    The Accident:

    Ryse Stollenwerck, a five-year-old boy with autism, was severely injured while playing at his mother’s boyfriend’s house. The boyfriend, Robert Schweggman Jr., was spinning another child around when they accidentally struck Ryse, causing serious injuries that left him wheelchair-bound and unable to speak.

    Ryse’s father sued Schweggman and the homeowner, John Ehret, claiming negligence. They argued that Ehret, who lived in Texas and rarely visited the Louisiana property, was negligent in allowing Schweggman and his son to play unsupervised, leading to Ryse’s injuries. They also suggested that Ehret, knowing Schweggman’s employment history, should have been aware that he was not equipped to care for a young autistic child.

    Ehret moved for summary judgment, arguing that he owed no duty to Ryse and had no obligation to supervise Schweggman or the children.

    The trial court granted Ehret’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The court emphasized that homeowners generally have no duty to protect others from the actions of third parties unless a “special relationship” exists, such as parent-child or employer-employee. In this case, no such relationship existed between Ehret and Schweggman. The court also noted that Ehret was unaware that Ryse and his mother were living in the house and had no knowledge of Schweggman’s activities with the children.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case highlights several important legal principles:

    • Limited Duty of Care for Homeowners: Homeowners are not automatically responsible for injuries that occur on their property, especially when caused by the actions of third parties.
    • Special Relationships and Duty to Protect: A duty to protect others from harm arises only in specific relationships, such as parent-child or employer-employee.
    • Foreseeability and Negligence: A homeowner can be held liable for negligence if the injury was foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. However, in this case, the court found that Ehret had no reason to foresee the accident.

    Conclusion:

    The Stollenwerck case serves as a reminder of the limitations of a homeowner’s liability for injuries occurring on their property. While the outcome is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the Stollenwerck family, it reinforces the legal principle that homeowners are not automatically responsible for the actions of others on their premises.

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Homeowner’s Liability: Homeowner Liability Insurance Coverage Upheld for Harmful Accident and What happens if a roofer is injured while putting a new roof on your house?

  • Car Insurance Exclusions: The Battle Between Intent and Fine Print

    Car insurance policies can be riddled with complex terms and conditions, often leading to misunderstandings between policyholders and insurers. The case of Mandi and Abigail Ardda v. Danielle T. Peters, et al. brings this issue to the forefront, highlighting the challenges of navigating insurance exclusions and the importance of clear communication.

    The Accident and the Insurance Claim:

    Abigail Ardda was involved in a car accident while driving a car she co-owned with her husband, Mandi. They filed a claim with their insurer, GoAuto Insurance Company, but were shocked to discover Abigail was listed as an excluded driver, despite their belief that she was covered.

    The Dispute:

    The Arddas claimed they had explicitly instructed the GoAuto agent to include Abigail on the policy and had even paid an additional premium for her coverage. They argued that the exclusion was a result of a mistake by the GoAuto employee and sought to have the policy reformed to reflect their original intent.

    The Court’s Decision:

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of GoAuto, stating that the exclusion was clear and unambiguous. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, stating that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a mutual error had occurred. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the true intent of the parties.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case underscores the following important points:

    • Read your policy carefully: It’s crucial to review your insurance policy thoroughly and understand its terms, including any exclusions. Don’t hesitate to ask your agent for clarification if anything is unclear.
    • Document your interactions with your insurer: Keep records of all conversations, emails, and other communications with your insurance agent or company. This can be valuable evidence if a dispute arises later.
    • Don’t rely solely on verbal agreements: While verbal assurances from your agent are important, make sure they are reflected in your written policy. If there’s a discrepancy, address it immediately.
    • Seek legal help if necessary: If you believe your insurer has made an error or is acting in bad faith, consult with an attorney who specializes in insurance law.

    The Ardda’s case serves as a reminder that insurance policies are contracts and should accurately reflect the agreement between the insured and the insurer. When misunderstandings arise, it’s important to seek resolution and, if necessary, legal recourse to protect your rights. Remember, the fine print matters, but so does your intent.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Car Insurance Contracts: What happens if you are involved in a car accident where your damages exceed the auto insurance policy limits of the person responsible? and Understanding Insurance Exclusions: A Case of Property Damage Coverage for Borrowed Cars

  • 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

  • Injured Worker Wins Right to Shoulder Surgery: Court Upholds Decision Against Employer and Insurer

    In a victory for injured workers in Louisiana, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit recently upheld a decision granting Lorae Burnett the right to shoulder surgery following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The case, Burnett v. Full Force Staffing, LLC, & LUBA Casualty Insurance Company, centered on interpreting the state’s Medical Treatment Guidelines and whether the recommended surgery was medically necessary and appropriate.

    Background of the Case:

    Mr. Burnett, an employee of Full Force Staffing, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while on the job. He sought workers’ compensation benefits for various injuries, including significant pain in his right shoulder. After receiving conservative treatment that failed to alleviate his pain, Mr. Burnett’s orthopedic shoulder specialist, Dr. Savoie, recommended surgery.

    Dispute Over Surgery:

    LUBA Casualty Insurance Company, the Full Force Staffing insurer, denied the surgery request. They claimed the surgery was not pre-authorized, and there was no prior indication that Dr. Savoie was Mr. Burnett’s chosen physician.

    Mr. Burnett challenged this denial, filing a Disputed Claim for Medical Treatment with the Office of Workers’ Compensation’s (OWC) Medical Director. After reviewing Mr. Burnett’s medical records, the Medical Director determined that the surgery was in accordance with the OWC Medical Treatment Guidelines and should be covered.

    The Appeal

    Full Force Staffing and LUBA appealed the Medical Director’s decision, arguing that the surgery was unnecessary and did not comply with the Medical Treatment Guidelines. They also asserted that Mr. Burnett had not undergone sufficient conservative therapy before opting for surgery.

    Court’s Decision:

    The Court of Appeal reviewed the case and found that Mr. Burnett’s medical records clearly showed that conservative treatment had failed to relieve his pain. The court also noted that the Medical Director had likely reviewed additional medical records not presented in court, further supporting the decision to approve the surgery.

    The court ultimately affirmed the OWC’s judgment, upholding Mr. Burnett’s right to receive the recommended shoulder surgery. It concluded that the appellants failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to overturn the Medical Director’s decision, especially since they did not present any countervailing medical evidence to dispute Dr. Savoie’s recommendation.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case is an essential reminder that injured workers in Louisiana have the right to receive medically necessary treatment, even if it requires surgery. The Medical Treatment Guidelines provide a framework for determining appropriate care, and the OWC Medical Director plays a critical role in resolving disputes.

    If your workers’ compensation claim for medical treatment is denied, you can challenge that decision. It is crucial to consult with an experienced workers’ compensation attorney who can guide you through the dispute resolution process and advocate for your right to receive the necessary medical care.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

  • 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

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

    A recent ruling from the Louisiana Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of securing substantial damages in personal injury cases, especially when pre-existing conditions and the severity of the accident are at play. The case, Pourciau v. Melville and State Farm, involved a minor rear-end collision. While the defendant admitted fault, the court ultimately upheld a modest damage award, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove a direct causal link between the accident and the claimed injuries.

    Douglas Pourciau was rear-ended by Dennis Melville at an intersection in Baton Rouge. While the accident was minor, Pourciau claimed it aggravated his pre-existing back and neck pain. He sued Melville and his insurer, State Farm, for damages.

    The trial court found Melville partially at fault but awarded Pourciau only a modest amount in general damages, citing the lack of evidence linking his ongoing pain to the accident. Pourciau appealed, seeking a higher award and additional damages for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle.

    The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove causation and the extent of their injuries.

    • Pre-existing Conditions and Causation: The court acknowledged Pourciau’s prior back and neck issues and highlighted the need to establish a direct causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation. It noted that Pourciau had reported improvement and a return to his pre-accident condition shortly after the accident, raising questions about the ongoing nature of his complaints.

    • Credibility and Medical Evidence: The court considered Pourciau’s testimony and medical records. It noted inconsistencies in his reporting of neck pain and the lack of evidence supporting his claims of severe ongoing pain. The court also found that Pourciau had not sought further medical treatment beyond chiropractic care and was managing his pain with over-the-counter medication.

    • Future Medical Expenses and Loss of Use: The court rejected Pourciau’s claims for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle. It found insufficient evidence to support these claims, particularly given the lack of recent medical treatment and the absence of evidence showing any rental car expenses or significant inconvenience caused by the loss of his vehicle.

    Things to Know: 

    The Pourciau decision highlights several important aspects of personal injury claims:

    • Proving Causation is Crucial: It’s not enough to have pre-existing conditions and experience pain after an accident. You must prove that the accident directly caused a new injury or significantly worsened your existing condition.
    • Medical Evidence Matters: Consistent medical records and expert testimony are vital in proving the extent of your injuries and their connection to the accident.
    • Credibility is Key: Your testimony and the consistency of your claims play a significant role. Inconsistent statements or gaps in medical treatment can weaken your case.
    • Mitigating Damages: If you’re seeking damages, you must take reasonable steps to mitigate them. This includes following medical advice and seeking appropriate treatment.

    The Pourciau case serves as a reminder that even in cases where fault is admitted, proving the extent of damages and their connection to the accident can be challenging, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved.

    If you’ve been injured in a car accident, consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is critical. They can help you gather strong medical evidence, build a persuasive case, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Remember, understanding the legal requirements and having skilled representation can make all the difference in securing a fair outcome.

    Additional Resources: DOUGLAS POURCIAU VERSUS DENNIS MELVILLE AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Pre-existing Injuries: Louisiana Court Awards Damages in Car Accident Case Despite Pre-Existing Conditions and How Does a Pre-Existing Injury affect your Workers’ Compensation Claim?

  • 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?

  • Driver Not Liable for Passenger’s Injury in Accident Beyond His Control

    Sometimes, being a passenger in a car can be a frustrating and disturbing experience. This is especially true when actions beyond the passenger’s control, such as being involved in a collision, put his or her life in danger. When such a situation arises, the injured passenger will, understandably, seek compensation from the responsible party. However, if the person who caused the accident leaves the scene and is never apprehended by law enforcement, an injured person may turn their attention elsewhere for financial compensation. Such a situation arose following a car accident on a stretch of highway between Jennings and Lafayette, Louisiana. 

    Kyle Jordan was driving a rental car with Riley Moulton as a passenger. The vehicle was sideswiped, causing Jordan’s car to flip over and injure Moulton. The hit-and-run driver was never identified, so Mouton sued both Jordan and the rental car company, EAN Holdings, for damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that since Mouton admitted in his deposition that Jordan was driving safely at the time of the accident and did nothing to cause it, Moulton offered no evidence to support a theory of recovery against Jordan or EAN Holdings. The trial court granted the defendant’s motions for summary judgment. Mouton appealed to Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

    The Appellate Court reviewed the facts of the case as laid out by Mouton himself in his deposition testimony. Mouton stated that Jordan had set the cruise control in the car to 70 MPH, consistent with the speed limit, and was “driving correct.” He further testified that the accident occurred when Jordan made a proper change into the left lane to pass a large truck.

    A driver in a Kia came up from behind and, in a dangerous and illegal move known as “shooting the gauntlet,” attempted to pass Jordan’s vehicle on the right-hand side between it and the truck Jordan was trying to pass. The Kia sideswipedan’s vehicle, sending it out of control. Jordan attempted to regain control but overcorrected and flipped the car. Mouton’s testimony made it evident that Jordan could not have done anything to avoid the accident.

    Summary judgment should be granted if “the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial.” Hardy v. Bowie, 744 So.2d 606 (La. 1999). In this instance, the Court noted, Mouton was unable to point to any evidence suggesting Jordan’s liability for the injuries he suffered in the crash.

    Mouton freely admitted in his deposition that Jordan was “driving as he was supposed to” by following the speed limit and remaining in his lane. Mouton also revealed that Jordan could not have taken any actions to avoid the accident. It was beyond his control, and the Kia driver was solely responsible for side-swiping Jordan. 

    Jordan also was not at fault for any action he may have taken after being sideswiped by the Kia under the sudden emergency doctrine. The doctrine provides that “one who finds himself in imminent danger, without sufficient time to weigh and consider all of the circumstances or means of avoiding danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to choose what subsequently appears to be the better method.” Bryn Lynn Corp. v. Valliere, 434 So.2d 600 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

    The Court determined that there was nothing Jordan could have done to avoid the accident, which occurred suddenly and unexpectedly; under the sudden emergency doctrine, he cannot be considered negligent for failing to regain control of the car. Instead, the driver of the Kia was solely at fault for the injuries Mouton suffered. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Jordan’s favor.

    Similarly, the Court held that Moulton offered no theory of recovery against EAN Holdings, which simply rented a car to Jordan. When a car renter is in “exclusive physical control of the lease object,” negligence “cannot be imputed to the lessor.” Dixie Drive It Yourself Sys. v. American Beverage Co., 137 So.2d 298 (La. 1962).  The Court noted that even if Jordan had been at fault for Mouton’s injuries, EAN Holdings would not have been liable under this “well settled” rule. Thus, the Court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of EAN Holdings.

    This case demonstrates two important principles. First, it shows how courts attempt to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently through summary judgment when a plaintiff fails to provide factual support for his theory of recovery. Second, it demonstrates the operation of the sudden emergency doctrine that limits a person’s liability when unexpectedly thrust into a dangerous situation caused by another party’s negligent or reckless actions. In what should be a comfort to motorists across Louisiana, the doctrine affords them some leniency for not acting perfectly reasonably when they are put in a situation for which they are not trained and have little or no experience. In this case, Jordan was not a stunt driver or car racer; the Court determined he could not be expected to know how to react perfectly when his car was sideswiped at highway speeds.

    Additional Source:  RILEY MOUTON VERSUS EAN HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

  • Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System Loses Battle Over Disability Insurance With East Baton Rouge Women

    On-the-job injuries can sometimes result in employment termination when the injury prohibits you from completing your work. When this happens, state-funded disability retirement benefits can keep former employees financially afloat; however, eligibility for such benefits depends on how long you have worked for the employer and when you file your claim.

    Bessie Hall worked for the State of Louisiana in East Baton Rouge for over seventeen years.  On July 13, 2012,  Ms. Hall suffered an on-the-job injury at the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services. Because her injury prevented her from working, her employer terminated her in September 2013. 

    Over two years later, Ms. Hall applied for disability retirement benefits through LASERS, the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System. LASERS, however, found Ms. Hall ineligible for these benefits.  Ms. Hall sued the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. The District Court held Ms. Hall was eligible for benefits, and LASERS appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

    The crux of this case was whether the District Court applied proper statutory interpretation. According to La. C.C. Art 10, “[w]hen the language of the law is susceptible to different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.” With this interpretive standard in mind, the Court of Appeal analyzed the construction and intent of the two statutes.

    This first statute, La. R.S.11:212, provides in section (A) that an employee injured in the workplace as “an active contributing member in active state service” and who “has at least ten years of creditable service” is entitled to disability benefits if he/she applies “while in service.” Section (C) provides for those who apply after termination, stating that such benefits are still available as long as “clear, competent, and convincing evidence [is shown] that the disability was incurred while the member was an active contributing member in active service.”

    The second statute, La. R.S.11:217 provides that an injured employer who has completed twenty years of service and is no longer in service is eligible for disability retirement benefits as long as his/her normal retirement benefits have not yet been vested. LASERS argued that these two statutes should be read together. In other words, an employer must first be eligible under La. R.S.11:217, and then La. R.S.11:212(C) provides an exception for applicants still in service. Because Ms. Hall had only worked 17, and not 20, years in state service, she should not have been eligible for disability retirement benefits.

    The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that “laws should not be given an interpretation that makes any part superfluous or meaningless.” Accordingly, LASERS’ reading of La. R.S.11:217 would render La. R.S.11:212(A) is meaningless because this statute determines an employer’s baseline eligibility. Ms. Hall would thus not be eligible under La. R.S.11:212(A) because she did not apply while in service.

    However, La. R.S.11:212(C) provides an exception, stating that an employer may apply after receiving termination if he/she gives evidence of service during the injury. This applies to Ms. Hall, meaning that she is eligible for benefits, and no other statute needs analyzing. The Court of Appeal found La. R.S.11:217 is inapplicable to this case because it covered something completely different: retirement vesting for employees whose injuries may or may not have occurred on the job and who had achieved twenty years of service. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed LASERS’ claims.

    Workplace injuries can change lives; however, eligibility for retirement disability benefits can ease resulting financial difficulties. For Ms. Hall, standard statutory construction confirmed her benefit eligibility, while LASERS’ incorrect interpretation cost the state in appeal costs. A good lawyer can assist with accurate statutory interpretation and help secure essential disability benefits.   

    Additional Sources: HALL v. LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

    Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog 

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Employment Benefits Disputes:  Lack of Substantial Evidence for Denial of Severance Pay Leads to Payment in Case Out of Baton Rouge