Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Wrongful demolition is a cause of action rarely invoked because the events giving rise to such an action rarely occur. Essentially, a claim for wrongful demolition arises when a plaintiff’s property was mistakenly or wrongfully demolished. In the following case, Morgan Moss found himself in the unique position of asserting such a claim against the town of Rayville, Louisiana. See La. C.C. art. 2315; see also Hornsby v. Bayou Jack Logging, 902 So.2d 361 (La. 2005).
One morning, while in his home Mr. Moss heard some strange noises coming from across the street. When he walked out of his house to inspect the source of the noise he discovered that his storage property across the street was being demolished by town workers. The town had somehow mistaken Mr. Moss’s property for another property that was scheduled to be demolished. Significantly, Mr. Moss filmed the town workmen but did not try to stop the demolition.
Mr. Moss presented his case to the Trial Court where he won a judgment for only $5000 for the loss of his property. Unsatisfied, Mr. Moss appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal hoping to recover more. Any good attorney knows to speak to judges with deference and respect. Along those lines, it’s unwise to make frivolous arguments or to embellish facts.
Ignoring instructions when assembling a coffee table, toys, or other household items may not, in the end, prove highly detrimental. In fact, such practices are commonplace. However, failing to follow the correct procedural steps is ruinous in the world of lawsuits. Recently, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal was forced to dismiss an appeal because of a plaintiff’s failure to follow the required procedural steps.
Does your homeowner’s insurance policy include coverage for libel or slander? We all make inappropriate comments and write negative reviews online from time to time. But what if you are sued for something you say or write? In a recent case out of Caddo Parish, Louisiana a dentist learned that while your policy may extend coverage for negligent acts, the insurance company may not be so willing to come to your defense for intentional acts. 
School bullying is a commonly discussed problem in our generation. Parents are often faced with dilemmas on how to protect their children and instruct them in dealing with bullies at school. In earlier eras perhaps this was considered a problem for the individual family to bear alone. In a recent case out of Plain Dealing, Louisiana however, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed that school teachers and the school board can now be held liable for such bullying and its effects. 
It is no secret that lawsuits are expensive creatures. It is perhaps baffling then that a party would retain an attorney, file a lawsuit, and maintain that lawsuit for over thirteen years without sufficiently actively pursuing that lawsuit. Yet, that is exactly what happened in a recent case out of Livingston Parish. And as the case explains, such inactivity within a case subjects the lawsuit to dismissal for abandonment. Money and time wasted for all parties involved. 
Unfair treatment at work can, unfortunately, be a common occurrence. While always annoying, the treatment can sometimes rise to such an egregious level that an employee feels justified in filing a lawsuit against the employer; especially if the aggrieved employee feels that there are racially motivated variances in treatment. As with all cases, however, the evidence is the key that unlocks the door to a successful lawsuit. For Rosie Washington, a former employee of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, an employment discrimination case devoid of evidence kept her victory behind locked doors. 
We all know that each U.S. citizen is entitled to certain rights contained within the Constitution.
A 
Inherent in most insurance contracts is an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against certain lawsuits. Part of this duty requires the insurer to pay for all legal costs and other fees related to a particular lawsuit. In a commercial general liability (“CGL”) context, business owners often rely on an insurer’s duty to defend in order to avoid paying significant legal fees for defending actions which would ultimately be covered by a CGL policy. As one might expect, whether this duty to defend exists depends on whether the loss alleged in a lawsuit is within the scope of the policy’s coverage. As a recent Louisiana Appellate Court illustrates, it is very important that insureds understand the language of their CGL policies so as to know when a duty to defend exists.
The National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, was Congress’ approach to providing flood coverage at affordable rates. Generally, through the program homeowners can buy a Standard Flood Insurance Policy, or SFIP, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or from private insurers. According to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the SFIP outlines the conditions and requirements under which federal funds may be distributed to eligible policyholders.