This case examines the requirements for proving merchant liability in slip and fall cases, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the burden of proof.
Case Background
Lamarr Pierite sued Dollar General, alleging he slipped and fell in a liquid substance at their store, causing injuries. After a trial, the court found Dollar General liable and awarded Mr. Pierite $30,000 in general damages plus other costs. Dollar General appealed the judgment.
The following case deals with the important legal concept of prescription (similar to a statute of limitations) and the rules for adding new parties to a lawsuit after the deadline has passed.
Case Background
Randall Iles was injured in a car accident and sued his auto insurer, State Farm Mutual, under his uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Nearly five years after the accident, he amended his lawsuit to include State Farm Fire, his umbrella policy provider. State Farm Fire argued that the claim against them was prescribed (too late) because they weren’t a solidary obligor with State Farm Mutual. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claims against State Farm Fire.
The following case explores the concept of “permissive use” in the context of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) insurance coverage. Specifically, it examines whether a son, given a company truck for work and personal use, had the authority to grant his father permission to drive the vehicle, thereby extending UM coverage to the father under the company’s policy.
Case Background
Randal Boudreaux was involved in an accident while driving a truck owned by AES Drilling Fluids, LLC, and insured by Commerce and Industry Insurance Company. The truck was assigned to Randal’s son, Micah, an AES employee. Micah had been given the truck for both business and personal use, subject to certain company policies.
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, overturned a trial court’s ruling that had dismissed a plaintiff’s uninsured motorist (UM) claim against her insurer, USAA, based on a previous settlement with the at-fault driver’s insurance company. The case, Tonyel Singleton v. United Services Automobile Association, highlights the complexities of release agreements and the importance of considering the parties’ intent.
Case Background:
Tonyel Singleton was involved in a car accident and subsequently settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company, State Farm, for their policy limits. The release agreement she signed included broad language releasing “all other persons, firms or corporations liable or, who might be claimed to be liable” from any claims related to the accident.
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of attorneys in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The case, highlights the critical distinction between contractual and delictual claims in insurance disputes and the potential impact on the applicable statute of limitations.
Michael Belanger was involved in a car accident and obtained a judgment against the other driver for an amount exceeding her insurance policy limits. He later sued the driver’s insurance company (GEICO) for bad faith failure to settle within policy limits. Belanger was represented by the same attorneys in both cases.
GEICO successfully argued in federal court that Belanger’s bad faith claim had prescribed (or expired due to the statute of limitations) because it was subject to a one-year prescriptive period for delictual (tort) actions. Belanger then sued his attorneys for legal malpractice, claiming they failed to argue that a ten-year prescriptive period for contractual actions applied.
In the realm of personal injury law, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case has highlighted the potential pitfalls of multiple lawsuits arising from the same accident. The case, Wicker v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, et al., involved a car accident where the plaintiff, Joy Wicker, initially filed a suit through her insurer, State Farm, followed by a separate personal injury lawsuit. The defendants tried to dismiss the second suit based on the doctrine of res judicata, but the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the distinct nature of the two claims.
In 2015, Joy Wicker was involved in a car accident with Cathy Craddock. State Farm, Wicker’s insurer, filed a lawsuit in City Court against Craddock and her insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau, seeking reimbursement for property damage, rental car payments, and medical payments made to Wicker.
Subsequently, Wicker filed a separate lawsuit in the 19th Judicial District Court, seeking damages for her personal injuries from the same accident.
In the realm of legal malpractice, the timing of filing a lawsuit is critical. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Wells v. Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, underscored this point, highlighting the one-year peremptive period for bringing such claims in the state. Let’s dissect this case and understand the implications for those considering legal action against their attorneys.
Glenda Wells hired Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, to represent her in a personal injury and property contamination lawsuit against several oil companies. Over time, Ms. Wells became dissatisfied with their representation and lodged a complaint with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board in October 2013, stating she believed the firm’s actions constituted “major negligence.”
Despite this, Ms. Wells continued her relationship with the firm until they withdrew from her case in 2015. Subsequently, her case was dismissed, and she filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the firm in March 2017. The firm argued her claim was barred by the one-year peremptive period outlined in Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5605.
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case sheds light on the complexities of personal injury claims following car accidents, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved. In the case of Lewis v. Fowler, the plaintiffs were involved in a minor accident and subsequently claimed significant damages for aggravated chronic pain. However, the court ultimately ruled that their pre-existing conditions were not substantially worsened by the accident and that they had been adequately compensated by the initial settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurance. This decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation of pre-existing conditions and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving damages when their medical history is complex.
Walter and Beverly Lewis were rear-ended at a stoplight. While the accident was minor, with no damage to the other vehicle and only slight damage to their own, the Lewises claimed the accident aggravated their pre-existing back and neck pain. They initially settled with the at-fault driver’s insurance company but then filed a claim against their uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carrier, State Farm, alleging their damages exceeded the initial settlement.
The trial court ruled in favor of State Farm, finding that the Lewises failed to prove their chronic pain was aggravated by the accident beyond a brief period. It determined that the initial settlement adequately compensated for any injuries or aggravations caused by the accident.
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of insurance agents fulfilling their duties with reasonable diligence and care. In Upscale Fashions, Inc. v. Botsay Insurance Network, Inc., an insurance agent’s failure to properly procure and communicate coverage details led to a significant financial loss for the insured and a hefty judgment against the agency.
Case Summary
Upscale Fashions, Inc., a retail clothing company, purchased a property insurance policy through Botsay Insurance Network, Inc. The policy initially included wind and hail coverage. However, this crucial coverage was excluded when the policy was renewed, allegedly without Upscale’s knowledge.
When an employee suffers a work injury, it may result in negative consequences for the employee’s health. While Louisiana’s workers’ compensation laws allow the employee to recover damages for these future health complications, this has its limits. The employee must prove that this future negative consequence was related to the initial injury at work. This ensures that employees who are rightfully harmed are compensated while also protecting businesses from having to pay for every future medical problem the employee has.
Kym Hurst was a physical therapy assistant for Cirrus Allied in Lafayette, Louisiana. Ms. Hurst had a history of back problems, which she had previously sought treatment for. On January 6, 2010, Ms. Hurst injured her back while helping one of her patients.
Ms. Hurst sought workers’ compensation benefits from her employer and its insurer, Ullico Insurance Company. She was eventually awarded a lump sum of over $46,000 and weekly indemnity benefits. By February 2013, Ullico had stopped paying benefits and had ultimately been declared insolvent. Kentucky Insurance Guaranty Association (“KIGA”) took over for Ullico after the insolvency.
Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog