gets.primecure.net

Category: Summary Judgment

  • The Advocate Highlights Jeff Berniard’s Expertise in Smitty’s Supply Explosion Case

    Fire and smoke rise from a chemical plant following the Smitty’s Supply explosion in Tangipahoa Parish.
    The Advocate recognized attorney Jeff Berniard for representing families impacted by the Smitty’s Supply chemical plant explosion and fire.

    The Advocate recently recognized Attorney Jeff Berniard and the Berniard Law Firm for their role in representing families displaced by the Smitty’s Supply explosion and fire in Tangipahoa Parish. Read the full Advocate article here.

    The feature highlights Berniard’s track record of success in large-scale litigation. Over his career, he has served as class counsel and lead counsel in numerous high-profile cases, including lawsuits involving chemical leaks, defective products, insurance bad faith practices, and environmental disasters.

    His legal experience includes being appointed to plaintiff steering committees and class counsel roles in major cases such as:

    • Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (MDL 2179) – Representing victims of one of the largest environmental disasters in U.S. history.

    • Chinese Drywall Litigation (MDL 2047) – Representing homeowners across Louisiana and beyond who faced toxic building materials.

    • Insurance Bad Faith Class Actions – Representing over 70,000 policyholders after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

    The Advocate’s recognition underscores the trust that courts, the media, and affected families place in Berniard’s ability to advocate for justice in the aftermath of industrial and environmental disasters.

    “Our mission has always been to stand up for people against powerful companies and insurers,” Berniard said. “Being recognized in The Advocate for our work on behalf of Tangipahoa Parish residents is a reminder of why we fight these battles every day.”

    You can contact the Berniard Law Firm’s office today to talk about your legal rights as a result of the Smitty’s Fire and lawsuits. Call our office today at 504-521-6000.

    See Also: Attorney Jeff Berniard Featured on WGNO for Leadership in Smitty’s Supply Class Action Lawsuit

    What You Need to Know About the Smitty’s Supply Explosion and Fire in Tangipahoa Parish

  • Sewage Spill Showdown: Cedar Lodge’s Fight for Justice Against Fairway View Apartments

    A picturesque pond, once teeming with life, transformed into a murky, foul-smelling mess. The culprit? Alleged sewage contamination from a neighboring apartment complex. This is the story of Cedar Lodge Plantation’s battle against Fairway View Apartments in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a legal fight that highlights the complexities of environmental disputes and property damage claims.

    The Contamination Crisis:

    In 2012, Cedar Lodge discovered their pond had been contaminated with sewage, evidenced by high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The source was traced back to the adjacent Fairway View Apartments. Cedar Lodge’s plans to develop their property into a residential and commercial community were shattered, leading them to sue the apartment owners and their sewage treatment contractor.

    Legal Twists and Turns:

    • Expert Witness Drama: The district court initially excluded Cedar Lodge’s environmental expert, Suresh Sharma, from testifying. This decision was later overturned on appeal, except for opinions related to specific federal standards.

    • Summary Judgment for the Defendants: The district court granted summary judgment to Fairway View Apartments, dismissing Cedar Lodge’s claims. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence of damage, even though contamination had occurred.

    • Appeal and Partial Reversal: The Court of Appeals partially reversed the district court’s decision, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Cedar Lodge’s negligence and nuisance claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Environmental Disputes and Property Rights: This case underscores the importance of environmental responsibility and the rights of property owners to be free from contamination caused by neighboring entities.

    • The Role of Expert Witnesses: The admissibility of expert testimony can significantly impact the outcome of a case. The appeals court’s decision to allow Sharma’s testimony demonstrates the importance of carefully evaluating an expert’s qualifications and the relevance of their opinions.

    • Damages in Environmental Cases: Determining damages in environmental cases can be complex. While regulatory standards are important, they don’t necessarily dictate the extent of damages a property owner can recover.

    The Fight Continues: The legal battle between Cedar Lodge and Fairway View is far from over. The case has been remanded to the district court, where a jury will decide whether Fairway View is liable and what damages, if any, should be awarded to Cedar Lodge.

    Additional Sources: CEDAR LODGE PLANTATION, L.L.C., v. CSHV FAIRWAY VIEW I, L.L.C.; CSHV FAIRWAY VIEW II, L.L.C.; CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INCORPORATED; SEWER TREATMENT SPECIALISTS, L.L.C.,

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Toxic Spills: Petroleum Corporation Releases Millions of Gallons of Toxins Harming Many in Calcasieu Parish and Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Approval of Settlement Agreement in Property Contamination Lawsuit

  • Procedural Hurdle Stalls Hotel Guest Lawsuit Appeal in Louisiana

    In a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, dismissed an appeal involving a lawsuit against the Bourbon Orleans Hotel. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case but on a procedural technicality: the lack of a final appealable judgment.

    In 2014, a group of hotel guests filed a lawsuit against the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, alleging they were victims of a robbery and assault in their room. They claimed the hotel failed to provide adequate security. The hotel sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence to support their claims. The district court granted the hotel’s motion.

    The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s ruling. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal without prejudice, focusing on the wording of the district court’s judgment. The judgment lacked specific “decretal language,” clearly stating the parties involved, the ruling, and the relief granted or denied.

    The Importance of Decretal Language:

    A judgment must be clear and self-contained, allowing anyone to understand its implications without referencing external documents. Decretal language, starting with the phrase “It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that…,” is crucial in achieving this clarity.

    The dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiffs can refile their appeal once the district court issues a proper final judgment with the necessary decretal language. This procedural setback delays the case’s resolution but doesn’t prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims.

    Takeaways:

    • Procedural Precision Matters: Even in complex legal battles, adherence to procedural rules is paramount. Seemingly minor errors in judgment wording can have significant consequences.
    • Finality of Judgments: Appellate courts must have a final appealable judgment to exercise their jurisdiction. Without it, appeals can be dismissed, leading to delays and additional legal costs.
    • Attention to Detail: This case highlights the importance of meticulous attention to detail in legal drafting. The absence of specific decretal language in the district court’s judgment prevented the Court of Appeal from addressing the case’s merits.

    While the legal dispute between the hotel guests and the Bourbon Orleans Hotel remains unresolved, this case is a stark reminder of the importance of procedural accuracy in the legal system.

    Additional Sources: NORRIS “MICKEY” DEARMON, SHAWN RIVERS, JOHN ROPER, II, SHAWN WHITE AND DAVID BEXLAY VERSUS ST. ANN LODGING, L.L.C., D/B/A BOURBON ORLEANS HOTEL AND QBE NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE GROUP

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Decretal Language in Judgments: What is Decretal Language, and Why is it Important? and Judgment In Lawsuit From Garage Sale Injury Lacked Necessary Decretal Language

  • 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 Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision has underscored the significance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. The case, Mariakis v. North Oaks Health System, involved a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed to provide adequate care, leading to the patient’s death. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, highlighting the necessity of expert evidence to resolve complex medical malpractice claims.

    Lori Mariakis presented to the emergency department at North Oaks Hospital with severe abdominal and vaginal pain. She was diagnosed with a colitis flare-up and discharged. Five days later, she returned with worsening symptoms and was diagnosed with constipation. However, her condition deteriorated, and she was admitted to another hospital, where she tragically passed away.

    Her sons sued North Oaks Health System, alleging that the hospital’s negligence in diagnosing and treating their mother led to her death. The medical review panel initially found no evidence of malpractice. However, the plaintiffs presented an expert witness, Dr. Robert V. West, who opined that the care provided by North Oaks fell below the applicable medical standard of care and caused Ms. Mariakis’s death.

    After initially excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs’ first expert witness, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of North Oaks, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked expert evidence to support their claims. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

    The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, focusing on the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. It held that the plaintiff’s expert witness affidavit and subsequent report were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the standard of care and causation, thereby precluding summary judgment.

    Things to Know: 

    • Expert Testimony is Crucial: In medical malpractice cases, expert medical testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care, breach of that standard, and causation.
    • Summary Judgment and Expert Evidence: When a defendant in a medical malpractice case moves for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s lack of expert testimony, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence to counter the motion and demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.
    • Admissibility of Expert Evidence: The court also addressed the admissibility of expert evidence, emphasizing the need for proper authentication and compliance with procedural rules.

    Implications for Patients and Medical Providers

    The Mariakis decision highlights the challenges of navigating medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana. For patients and their families, it underscores the critical importance of securing qualified expert witnesses to support their claims. Expert testimony can be the deciding factor in establishing a healthcare provider’s negligence and its causal link to the patient’s injuries or death.

    For medical providers, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the standard of care and documenting their actions thoroughly. Even if a medical review panel initially finds no evidence of malpractice, a plaintiff can still prevail in court if they present compelling expert testimony.

    The Mariakis case illustrates the complexities of medical malpractice litigation and the critical role of expert witnesses. Whether you’re a patient seeking justice for medical negligence or a healthcare provider defending your actions, seeking legal counsel from an experienced medical malpractice attorney is crucial. They can help you understand the legal standards, gather and present expert evidence, and navigate the complexities of the litigation process.

    Additional Resources:CHRISTOPHER CHARLES MARIAKIS AND MICHAEL ANDREW MARIAKIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF LORI HALE MARIAKIS VERSUS NORTH OAKS HEALTH SYSTEM

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Expert Testimony: Louisiana Court Reinstates Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Timely Expert Evidence and The Role of Expert Witnesses in Accident Claims: Resolving Conflicting Testimony

  • 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?

  • Car Wash Accident Injury Case Proceeds After Summary Judgment Reversed

    In cases involving multiple defendants, courts are frequently asked to dismiss some or all of the parties because no set of facts can allow a case to proceed. Defendants will point the finger at their counterparts in hopes of securing a dismissal for themselves. However, the dismissal of even just one defendant can mean the loss of significant compensation for the party bringing the lawsuit. In a recent injury case out of Baton Rouge, a family was able to get their day court despite the best efforts of their opponent.   

    Calandra Carr and her two children, Louis Carr, Jr., and Ciara Carr, were all riding in their van when they were in line to use the Geaux Clean Express Car Wash behind Jeffrey Dykes. Anthony Amedee was in front of Mr. Dykes’ vehicle when Mr. Amedee’s vehicle moved backward, striking Mr. Dykes vehicle, which in turn, hit the Carr’s van. This collision caused injuries, damages, and losses, which Carr’s argument caused because Mr. Amedee failed to maintain proper vehicle control.  The Carr’s also claimed that Geaux Clean failed to maintain the car wash properly and that their negligence was also a cause of the collision.

    The Carrs filed a lawsuit against Anthony Amedee and his liability insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”), Geaux Clean Express Car Wash (“Geaux Clean”) and its insurer, Ohio Security, and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”) as the Carrs’ UM insurers.

    In response, Ohio Security filed a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law because they argued that the Carrs were incapable of proving that Geaux Clean’s carelessness caused their injuries. The Carrs argued against summary judgment because there were many unresolved questions regarding Geaux Clean’s liability, including conflicting testimony that required a determination based on witness credibility. However, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the Carrs’ claims with prejudice.

    A summary judgment motion is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Granting a summary judgment motion allows the court to avoid a full-scale trial. See All Crane Rental of Georgia, Inc. v. Vincent, 47 So.3d 1024 (La. Ct. App. 2010).  If a court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court will grant the motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3).

    The documents that can be submitted in opposition to or in support of a motion for summary judgment are restricted to affidavits, memoranda, pleadings, certified medical records, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and written stipulations. See La C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4).  When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court cannot make credibility decisions because it must assume that all witnesses are credible. See Monterrey Center, LLC v. Ed.ucation Partners, Inc., 5 So.3d 225 (La. Ct. App. 2008).  

    The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed the deposition testimony and found varying accounts of the collision. The First Circuit disagreed that summary judgment was appropriate in this case because the District Court cannot determine credibility based on a motion. The evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact that must be determined by a fact finder and not a court. 

    The First Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Carr’s case underscores the importance of hiring an excellent attorney who understands the standards associated with summary judgment motions.  A good attorney can help a court see where there are disputed facts in a case and keep a case from being dismissed prematurely.  

    Additional Sources: Carr v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Louisiana Summary Judgement: Florida Boulevard Car Accident Injury Claims Reinstated After Appeal of Summary Judgment

  • Prior Mistake Does Not Waive Insurer’s Defense In Subsequent Claim

    If you are in a car accident and your insurance pays your claim, you likely expect the same thing will happen if you are subsequently in a similar accident. What happens if your insurer paid your prior claim, but tries to deny a subsequent claim? 

    Brandon Forvendel was injured in a car accident. When the accident occurred, he was driving a car he owned and was insured by State Farm. Forvendel had uninsured motorist coverage. After the accident, Forvendel recovered under his uninsured motorist policy. 

    When the accident occurred, he was living with his mother, who also had insurance through State Farm. Forvendel also tried to recover under his mother’s uninsured motorist policy, which had higher policy limits. State Farm denied his attempt to recover under both his and his mother’s policies under the anti-stacking provisions in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c). Forvendel then filed a lawsuit against State Farm. 

    He claimed this situation was similar to what occurred when he was involved in another accident years earlier and State Farm had allowed him to recover under both his and his mother’s uninsured motorist policies. State Farm representatives testified they had not considered the anti-stacking statute at the time of the prior accident. 

    The district court found in favor of Forvendel, noting State Farm had previously interpreted the policy to cover Forvendel under his mother’s policy, based on State Farm paying Forvendel when the prior accident occurred. State Farm appealed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in holding State Farm had waived any defenses to the current claim by having paid Forvendel when the prior accident occurred. 

    The Louisiana Supreme Court noted Forvendel did not dispute that the anti-stacking provision applied here. However, he argued State Farm waived its right to this defense by paying out his prior claim. In Steptore v. Masco Constr. Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court held an insurer waives its right to coverage defenses if they assume and continue to defend the insured even when there are facts they had the right to deny coverage. 

    However, the court distinguished Steptore from the situation here. In Steptore, the waiver was based on the insurer’s actions with respect to a specific incident. In this case, Forvendel tried to rely on State Farm’s actions from a claim years earlier. Therefore, the Louisiana Supreme Court held the insurer had not waived its defenses to Forvendel’s current claim by paying out the claim associated with his accident years earlier and reversed the appellate court’s holding State Farm had waived its defenses by having paid the prior claim. Otherwise, the court noted State Farm would never be allowed to use the anti-stacking statue as a defense against subsequent claims.

    This case illustrates how just because your insurance policy paid out one claim, does not mean your insurer will have have to pay a subsequent similar claim. A good attorney can advise you on what your insurance policy does and does not qualify and what to do if your insurer denies your claim.

    Additional Sources: Brandon Forvendel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

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

  • Who Is Covered By A Settlement Agreement Release?

    A settlement agreement can be an efficient way of resolving a claim and receiving compensation without a lengthy trial process. However, it is essential to understand what a settlement agreement does and does not cover to avoid surprises down the road if you later try to bring related lawsuits against other parties. 

    Kerry Maggio was injured in a car accident when he was hit by a vehicle driven by James Parker, who worked for Sandwich Kings. Brenda Parker owned the vehicle, which was insured by the Louisiana Farm Bureau. Maggio filed a lawsuit against James Parker, Sandwich Kings, and their insurers. 

    Maggio signed a settlement agreement and release of all claims with Brenda Parker and the Louisiana Farm Bureau. Neither James Parker nor Sandwich Kings was specifically mentioned in the release. Sandwich Kings and its insurer filed a summary judgment motion, arguing Maggio’s release applied to them because it released “all other persons” who were or might be liable for his injuries from the accident. 

    Maggio claimed Sandwich Kings was not covered by the release. The district court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion. The appellate court agreed with the district court’s judgment, explaining there was no clear intention for the release to benefit Sandwich Kings as a third-party beneficiary. 

    The Louisiana Supreme Court explained because the release’s language was clear and unambiguous, it could not consider evidence outside the corners of the release. See La. C.C. art. 2046. Settlement agreements and releases are governed by general principles of contract interpretation. See La. C.C. art. 3071. However, there is an exception that allows parties to introduce extrinsic evidence to the court to determine the scope of a settlement agreement, such as in the dispute here. The release explicitly stated it released “all other persons.” However, the release did not specifically name or reference Sandwich Kings or James Parker. 

    Maggio negotiated the release with Brenda Parker and Farm Bureau, neither of whom were defendants in the litigation. Further, the defendants were not involved in negotiating the release and were not specifically named. Additionally, there was nothing in the release about dismissing the ongoing lawsuit against Sandwich Kings and James Parker.

    The defendants were also unable to demonstrate that they received any third-party benefit through the release. Therefore, Maggio sufficiently showed evidence about the scope of what the parties intended to cover in their settlement agreement. Further, summary judgment is not the appropriate stage to make determination about subjective intent. Therefore, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial and appellate court’s denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion because the release did not show a clear intent to benefit the defendants as third-party beneficiaries.

    Much of the conflict in this lawsuit about what the release covered could have been avoided if the release had been more precisely drafted. If you are considering signing a settlement agreement, it is important to consult with an attorney, so you understand what is covered by the agreement and you are not releasing more than you intend to. 

    Additional Sources: Kerry Maggio v. James Parker et al.

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Settlement Agreements: Can a Settlement Agreement Preclude Future Lawsuits? Not Always: A Case Study