Litigation

November 21, 2016

Louisiana Supreme Court Discusses the “Abandonment” Rule

abandon house
In litigating or defending against claims, timing and rule compliance matters. A failure to timely bring a claim can forfeit your right of recovery. A failure to comply with the time limits and requirements of discovery rules can have a similar effect. When parties fail to take steps to prosecute or defend a claim in trial court in three years, the claim is considered abandoned. A recent case from the Louisiana Supreme Court discusses the “abandonment rule” and what sort of steps are required to avoid dismissal of a case.

In 2008, Bryon Guillory and Margo Guillory brought a lawsuit against Pelican Real Estate, Inc. and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. In their, the Guillorys claimed that he purchased a home with a redhibitory defect (a defect so substantial that his home was virtually unusable) voiding or nullifying the sale. The issue in the case was not the underlying merits of Mr. Guillory’s claim, but a rule of discovery. Discovery is the process of obtaining evidence for use at trial.

On December 17, 2012 the Guillorys served written discovery on Pelican, but failed to serve it on the St. Paul. The Guillorys then scheduled a discovery conference and sent the notice of the conference to Pelican only. Counsel for the Guillorys and Pelican participated in the discovery conference on January 28, 2013. Perhaps feeling a bit left out, St. Paul filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the Guillorys’ lawsuit. St. Paul argued that under La. C.C.P. art. 561, the lawsuit was abandoned because no steps were taken in prosecution or defense of the matter in more than three years since the taking of depositions on March 4, 2010. The Trial Court granted St. Paul’s motion and signed an ex parte judgment of dismissal.

November 19, 2016

Court of Appeal Describes How “Forced Heirs” Force Their Way into Inheritance

by Berniard Law Firm

estatehouse-1218427
In Louisiana, you cannot “disinherit” your children. What does this mean exactly? It means that upon death, Louisiana law will allow a decedent’s children to share in his or her estate, even if the decedent left those children out as beneficiaries. The left-out children are called “forced heirs,” and will take a portion of the decedent’s estate (called the “legitime” or “forced portion”) unless the decedent has a just cause for leaving them out. La. C.C. art. 1494. A recent case of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal describes the rights of forced heirs to take in a decedent’s estate.

This case arose out of the death of Geronimo Ji Jaga, and the division of his annuity account at Western National Insurance Company. Mr. Ji Jaga had five children from various marriages: Shona Pratt, Hiroji Pratt, Nikki Michaux, Kayode Ji Jaga, and Tkumsah Geronimo Jaga. He named his eldest two children, Shona and Hiroji (“the Pratts”), as the beneficiaries to the annuity. After Mr. Ji Jaga’s death, one of his surviving spouses – Jojuyounghi Cleaver – filed a lawsuit in the Parish of St. Mary against Wester National alleging that her son, Kayode, should be considered a forced heir and entitled to share in the annuity.

In response, Western National filed asserted that the Pratts, the named beneficiaries of the annuity, should be joined in the lawsuit. After Mrs. Cleaver amended her petition adding the Pratts as defendants, the Pratts filed, among other exceptions, a peremptory exception of no cause of action. Tkumsah’s mother, Laila Minja, later filed a petition to intervene. She claimed that Tkumsuh was also a forced heir. The Pratts filed the same exceptions against Mrs. Minja as they did against Mrs. Cleaver. The Trial Court sustained the Pratt’s exception of no cause of action and dismissed Mrs. Cleavers’ and Mrs. Minja’s claims. The Trial Court considered the Pratt’s other exceptions as moot. Mrs. Cleaver and Mrs. Minja appealed the Trial Court’s judgment.

November 16, 2016

Slidell Hospital Not at Fault in Lawsuit for Independent Contractor Worker’s Alleged Negligence

by Berniard Law Firm

hospital-s-corridor-1631146-1024x765 If your unlucky enough to slip and fall at a business the first person you would think about suing is the business itself. However, businesses today contract out many aspects of cleaning and other maintenance and in doing so also alleviate their responsibility for negligence on their property. The following case out of St. Tammany Parish discusses the concept of who might be at fault for a slip and fall when the cleaning of floors is contracted out to another party.

In 2005, Joy Smith was visiting a friend who was a patient at Northshore Regional Medical Center (Hospital) in Sidell, Louisiana. As Ms. Smith was walking down the hall, she slipped and fell in some water near where the floors had just been buffed. Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit against the Hospital alleging they were negligent in failing to properly warn her of the hazard that caused her fall. The Hospital answered the lawsuit and filed a third party demand, adding as third party defendants Hospital Housekeeping Systems (HHS), and the employee of HHS who had just buffed the floor. The Hospital had a contractual relationship with HHS to provide the Hospital with housekeeping services for the hospital.

The Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment in the lower court seeking to have Ms. Smith’s claim against the hospital dismissed. The Hospital alleged that it was merely the property owner, and it should not be held liable for conditions created by HHS as they contracted with them to clean the floors. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 969. Within the contractual obligations of the Hospital and HHS, HHS was responsible for maintaining the area where Ms. Smith had fell. The lower court agreed, and granted the summary judgment.

November 13, 2016

Does Signing a Settlement Release Extinguish All Claims in Louisiana, Including Cancer?

by Berniard Law Firm

angel-of-final-judgement-1466539

Accidents happen, and sometimes it takes years before the effects of those accidents show up. So what happens in Louisiana if you are exposed to a toxic chemical and go through the traditional lawsuit process including resolving all of your claims but later develop cancer? Can you come back and file another lawsuit seeking recourse for your newly acquired damages? It depends on the language of the release that was signed when you settled the first lawsuit. The following case highlights the importance of receiving thorough legal consultation before signing a settlement agreement to ensure you know exactly what rights are being extinguished.

In 1996, Leonard Bracken was exposed to mustard gas while working for the Payne & Keller Company. A tort suit was subsequently filed against the company, but in 1999 before the case reached trial, Leonard agreed to settle his tort suit for $275,531. In addition to settling his tort claim, Leonard signed a compromise agreement where he released Payne & Keller and any other potential tortfeasors from any other claims arising under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act. Under the compromise, Leonard was forever barred from seeking compensation for any medical expenses or any other benefits from the company stemming from the 1996 chemical exposure.

Unfortunately, around six years after settling his lawsuit Leonard developed cancer. Believing that the cancer was related to his exposure to mustard gas Leonard filed a workers compensation claim against his employer, the Payne & Keller company seeking compensation relating to the 1996 incident. Leonard declared no wage benefits had ever been paid, his medical treatment had been discontinued, and his previous attorneys had filed and settled the workers’ compensation claim without his knowledge. Payne & Keller responded by filing exceptions raising the objection of prescription and additionally sought sanctions against Leonard. The Office of Workers Compensation (OWC) sustained Payne and Keller’s exceptions and order Leonard to pay sanctions as the OWC determined Leonard’s pleading violated Civil Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 863 by being frivolous and without merit. Leonard appealed the OWC’s decision. Additionally, Leonard turned to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2002(A)(1) in filing a motion with the OWC declaring the 1999 judgment should be nullified, as 2002(A)(1) states a final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered against an incompetent person. The OWC did not hold a hearing on Leonard’s motion, rather it dismissed Leonard’s motion with no explanation.

November 12, 2016

Insurers Owe No Duty to Defend Against Exempted Claims in Bollinger Shipbuilder Lawsuit

by Berniard Law Firm

tall-ship-silhouette-1449207
It seems rare in insurance coverage litigation for a court to wholeheartedly agree with an insurer that the coverage requested is not in fact provided for in the contract for insurance. Yet, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did just that, upholding a decision out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana finding without question that Bollinger Shipyards, Inc. was not entitled to defense by its insurers in a lawsuit brought against it by the United States.

Bollinger, a shipbuilder headquartered in New Orleans, won a multi-million dollar “Deepwater” modernization contract to upgrade eight (8) 110-foot U.S. Coast Guard cutters to make them 123-foot vessels. Despite the Coast Guard’s concerns that the boat hulls were not able to accommodate the 13-foot extensions, Bollinger pushed forward on the project. On several occasions, Bollinger submitted analyses to the Coast Guard purporting to show that the hull strength was sufficient. In reality, the hull strength was not sufficient which became apparent when one of the ships “suffered a structural casualty that included buckling of the hull.” The Coast Guard determined that the seven remaining ships were equally faulty and unusable.

Eventually, the United States filed a lawsuit against Bollinger over the faulty work. The Court allowed the United States to move forward with two claims under the False Claims Act. Days prior to the government’s filing, Bollinger notified its general maritime insurer, XL Speciality Insurance Company, and its excess insurer, Continental Insurance Company, of the impending claims in an effort to shift the burden of the expense of the defense to the insurers. In response, XL issued a “reservation of rights” letter stating that it was unsure if Bollinger’s policy included this coverage.

November 11, 2016

The Plight of the Luddite: Increasing Concerns for Plaintiffs of Age Discrimination Claims

by Berniard Law Firm

technology
A Luddite is a person who is opposed to technological innovation. A Luddite will refuse to learn about new technology and will not incorporate it into their skills, either at work or at home. Having this mindset has obvious drawbacks for workers in today’s world, but what happens to the individuals who do not necessarily avoid technology, but are slow to catch up?

In 2015, a 52-year old employee of Jefferson Parish fell into this unfortunate cohort. This employee had been working for Jefferson Parish for over twenty years of service. When it came time for Jefferson Parish to choose who to promote to the position of Executive Assistant, there were two options: Maria Cooper, a young 28-year old employee with technological know-how, or the 52-year old, an experienced and loyal employee.

To Jefferson Parish, the choice was obvious. Since the essential job requirements of the position of Executive Assistant included working knowledge in the maintenance and updating of all computers, servers, and wiring of the computer network, as well as experience in setting up Excel spreadsheets, Ms. Cooper seemed like the best fit. But what about the 52-year old? She was left in the dust. After being passed up for the position, the 52-year old filed a lawsuit against Jefferson Parish, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.

November 10, 2016

Louisiana Appeals Court Defines “Employee” in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit From Iberia Parish

by Berniard Law Firm

Employees Only
In the law, it is common for a case to turn on the definition of one word. A word that ordinarily may conjure a single image can explode with possibilities, nuances, and sometimes disastrous consequences during a lawsuit. For Mr. D that word was “employee.” In a recent case, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal helped define the term “employee” as regards workers’ compensation law and employment discrimination law.

In this case, Mr. D was hired by Lofton Industries, Inc., a staffing services company, that assigned Mr. D to work with National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (“NOV”). While at NOV, Mr. D alleged that he suffered both verbal and sexual harassment from coworkers. The harassment lasted until Mr. D was fired by NOV. Mr. D filed a lawsuit for sexual harassment against his harassers and NOV, as well as a separate negligence claim against NOV for the negligent hiring and supervision of its employees. This is where the definition of “employee” becomes important and interesting.

In order to maintain his claims against NOV, Mr. D had to meet the definition of employee under the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (“LEDL”) but avoid being considered an employee under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”). Confusingly, the District Court dismissed both Mr. D’s claims, finding that he was both an employee (for LWCA purposes) and not an employee (for LEDL purposes) at the same time.

November 6, 2016

Court of Appeal Discusses Louisiana’s “Lemon Law” Regarding Used Automobile Sales

by Berniard Law Firm

Buying an automobile can be an exciting experience regardless of whether one is trading in an old gas-guzzler for a newer, more efficient model or buying brand new. However, the process of buying an automobile can be a hassle if one happens to purchase a “lemon.” In Louisiana, a “lemon” is defined as a new automobile that has a defect that is significant enough to severely impair the automobile’s use and/or market value. With this being said, it is surprising that even with the abundance of information readily available via Internet, many individuals hastily purchase automobiles, rather than taking the time to gather information and make an informed decision. It is important to remember, as the buyer, that you should be in control throughout the entire process by (1) knowing the style of automobile you desire; (2) calculating the price you can afford; (3) researching the safety, quality, expert opinions, and owner opinions of the automobile you are planning to purchase; and (4) investigating the types of warranties readily available. In the event that one finds his/herself in the aforementioned situation, it is pertinent to retain an attorney, who specializes in Redhibition Law (i.e., Lemon Law) who will file a redhibition claim (i.e., lemon law claim) on your behalf.

The following redhibition action out of Houma, Louisiana discusses the conditions that must be proven by the buyer in order to obtain a favorable judgment. On September 3, 2013, Ms. Melissa Cadiere purchased a 2000 Lincoln LS with 199,684 miles from Wholesale Autoplex, L.L.C. Ms. Cadiere drove the Lincoln for thirty-seven days before her Lincoln failed to start, at which time she contacted Wholesale Autoplex. Wholesale Autoplex advised Ms. Cadiere that her Lincoln would need a new engine. After Wholesale Autoplex failed to repair or replace the engine, Ms. Cadiere filed a petition for redhibition.

Redhibition, in the context of automobiles, is the avoidance of a sale of some vice or defect in the automobile, which renders the automobile either absolutely useless, or severely compromises the function of the automobile in a matter that if known by the buyer at the time of purchase, the buyer would have chosen not to purchase the automobile. See La. C.C. art. 2520. In a redhibition claim, the buyer (i.e., plaintiff) must prove (1) that the seller (i.e., defendant) sold the good in a manner that renders the good absolutely useless for its intended purpose or its use is compromised in a manner that if known at the time of purchase, a reasonable person would have chosen not to purchase the good; (2) the good contained a hidden defect at the time of purchase; and (3) the seller was provided the opportunity to repair the defect. Crow v. Laurie, 729 So. 2d 703, 705-06 (La. Ct. App. 1999).

November 5, 2016

Father of Color Guard Member Unable to Prove Negligence after MLK Parade Injury

by Berniard Law Firm

When bringing a negligence lawsuit to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of another person’s failure to act with due care, it is important to ensure that that sufficient evidence has been gathered in advance of the trial. A good lawyer knows that in order to properly safeguard against the tactic employed by the opposing party, one must be prepared to back up one’s claim. A case from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal highlights exactly this point.

In this case, Robert Lee Iles brought a lawsuit on behalf of his minor daughter, Jannah, who was a member of the color guard at Northshore High School (“NHS”) until she sustained an injury. As a member of the NHS color guard, Jannah attended a two-week band camp during the summer. At band camp, she practiced for two hours, two to three times a week after school, and worked alongside her color guard teammates in a daily one-hour class. She and her teammates received between nine to ten hours of instruction each week. Additionally, she received special training sessions to prepare for the Martin Luther King, Jr. (“MLK”) parade. According to Mr. Iles’ petition, Jannah sustained an injury while marching as a member of the NHS color guard while performing alongside the band at a MLK parade in Slidell, Louisiana.

Iles petition claimed that his daughter’s injury entitled the family to damages. The petition named a number of defendants, including: St. Tammany Parish School Board, NHS Band Boosters, Inc. and its insurer, the band director, the color guard director, the school principal, and the parents of her fellow NHS color guard member, Gabrielle Haley. Iles claimed the School Board was liable for the actions of its employees, thus justifying the inclusion of the band director, and that the Boosters paid the color guard director, so his inclusion was justified as well. Iles’ lawsuit further posited that the School Board and Boosters had failed to properly supervise or train the color guard students, giving rise to this action. Iles also sought additional damages from the defendants for failing to properly administer medical attention.

November 4, 2016

Court of Appeal Contemplates City of Baton Rouge’s Vicarious Liability for Police Misconduct

by Berniard Law Firm

on-patrol-1565455-1024x683 In Louisiana, employers are considered to be vicariously liable for the wrongdoings of their employees. La. C.C. art. 2320. This means that an employer is held liable for damages that their employee may cause while performing designated job duties. In a recent case, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal discussed whether vicarious liability could apply to hold the City of Baton Rouge responsible for injuries caused by the wrongful conduct of one of its police officers.

On March 4, 2007 Officers Nicholas Batiste and Nathan Davis were dispatched to the home of Brian Townsend in Baton Rouge, Louisiana due to a noise complaint. Mr. Townsend, who was hosting a house party at his Highland Road residence, was instructed by Officer Davis and Officer Batiste to shut the party down. Though the parties disputed what transpired after the officers asked that the party be shut down, it was undisputed that Officer Davis tackled Mr. Townsend from behind. Officer Davis landed on Mr. Townsend with such force that Mr. Townsend involuntarily defecated on himself.

Once Mr. Townsend was brought to the police station, he was made to sit on the floor due to his condition. As he was sitting on the floor, he continually asked to use the restroom. His requests were denied. He was then pepper sprayed multiple times and kicked in the groin by Officer Davis. Additionally, Mr. Townsend was dragged across concrete and gravel as he was being moved for processing. Mr. Townsend was brought to the hospital for his cuts from being dragged. There, it was discovered that Mr. Townsend’s bladder was ruptured. Mr. Townsend underwent surgery to repair his bladder. Following Mr. Townsend’s release from the hospital, he returned due to a urinary tract infection, deep vein thrombosis, a non-functioning bowel, and pneumonia.