Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
The legal landscape can be full of unexpected twists and turns, and one such situation arose in this perplexing lawsuit. Erika Mann’s post-Hurricane Katrina home-raising project became a legal battle when she filed a lawsuit against Tim Clark Construction LLC and their insurer, Evanston Insurance Company. As the trial court issued a judgment that seemingly favored both parties, questions arose about the validity and coherence of the ruling. Join us as we delve into the intricacies of this case and explore how an inconsistent judgment navigated its way through the appeals process.
Erika Mann hired Tim Clark Construction LLC to raise her house in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as part of Louisiana’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Evanston Insurance Company was Tim Clark’s insurer for the relevant period. Its policy included a commercial general liability form covering bodily injury and property damage. It was an occurrence policy, which required that the injuries and damage occurred during the policy period. Additionally, the insurance policy had a pre-existing endorsement, which excluded any damage or loss that began to occur from an occurrence that began before the policy period.
The construction took a few months, after which Tim Clark Construction obtained a certification of completion and occupancy. However, elevation studies revealed that the house had not been appropriately elevated. Mann then informed Tim Clark Construction it had not properly completed the project, and the house had failed inspection.
Mann then filed a lawsuit against Tim Clark Construction and their insurer, claiming they damaged her house and property, causing her emotional distress. Evanston Insurance filed a summary judgment motion, arguing their insurance policy did not cover any of Mann’s damages because of the pre-existing endorsement. Mann also filed a summary judgment motion. The trial court granted Evanston Insurance’s summary judgment motion, holding the pre-existing endorsement applied. It dismissed all of Mann’s claims against Evanston Insurance. However, the trial court also granted some of Mann’s requested relief against Evanston.
On appeal, Mann argued the trial court’s judgment was inconsistent because it dismissed all of her claims against Evanston Insurance while also granting some items in Mann’s favor. A judgment must be precise, definite, and certain to be valid. See Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor. If a judgment is not clear, the appellate court can remand the lawsuit to the trial court for clarification. See Bouton v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development. This can include situations where the trial court’s judgment appears to be inconsistent.
The appellate court agreed the trial court’s judgment was inconsistent because the court could not at the same time dismiss all of Mann’s claims against Evanston Insurance because of provisions in the insurance policy while still purporting to grant Mann some of her requested relief against Evanston Insurance. Therefore, the appellate court said it could not determine what the trial court intended to do in its judgment and remanded the judgment to the trial court for clarification.
When the trial court issued its judgment, Mann and Tim Clark Construction likely thought they had prevailed on certain aspects of the lawsuit. However, if something seems too good to be true, it usually is. This case illustrates the importance of carefully reviewing the trial court’s judgment to ensure the ruling makes sense. Otherwise, you might find yourself back in court for the trial court to provide clarification.
Additional Sources: Erika Mann v. Tim Clark Construction LLC
Article Written By Berniard Law Firm
Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Language in Judgments: What Happens When Your Judgment Lacks The Magic Words Appealing a Court Judgment in Louisiana: Why Decretal Language Matters