Insight

Back to the Beginning - Veil Piercing

Published on: December 17, 2013

The longstanding rule that the analysis for "piercing the corporate veil" of an LLC is substantially the same as the analysis for piercing the veil of corporations has been called into question by the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Ogea v. Travis Merritt and Merrit Construction, LLC, 2013-1085, --- So.3d ---. In Ogea, the Court addressed "the extent of the limitation of liability afforded to a member of an LLC" and the statutory basis for exceptions to this limited liability.

Typical of a veil piercing case, the Ogea Court began its discussion by citing familiar Louisiana cases on the topic: Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., Inc., 590 So.2d 1164 (La. 1991) and the more recent Charming Charlie, Inc. v. Perkins Rowe Associates, L.L.C., 11-2254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/10/12), 97 So.3d 595. However, the similarities stopped there.

The Court noted that traditional veil piercing doctrine was not invoked by the lower courts or the plaintiff. Instead, the Court's analysis turned on the interpretation of an infrequently cited statute within Title 12 that addresses the limitation of liability for LLC members. La. R.S. 12:1320(A) states that the liability of members and managers of an LLC "shall at all times be determined solely and exclusively by the provisions of this Chapter." Subsection (B) provides that members and managers are generally not liable for the debts, obligations, or liabilities of the LLC. Subsection (D) prescribes the exceptions to this limitation of liability, to include fraud, breach of professional duty, and any other negligent or wrongful act by the member or manager.

Addressing this statute as a matter of first impression, the Ogea Court applied the statute to the facts of the case. Merritt Construction, LLC was hired to build a home for plaintiff, Mary Ogea. As part of the process, Ms. Ogea requested that she have a friend prepare the site for the foundation. Travis Merritt, the sole member of Merritt Construction, LLC, informed Ms. Ogea that having someone else prepare the site would waive the warranty. Mr. Merritt subsequently operated the bulldozer to prepare the site for a subcontractor to pour the concrete slab. A dispute arose when a concrete contractor informed Ms. Ogea of problems with the home's foundation. Under these facts, the Court concluded Mr. Merritt was not personally liable under the exclusive exceptions to limited liability found in La. R.S. 12:1320(D).

The first exception, fraud, was rejected because no evidence in the record supported a finding that Mr. Merritt committed fraud.

Turning to the next exception, the Court also rejected the argument that plaintiff breached a professional duty as the sole member of the construction company. The professions recognized in Louisiana's corporate laws do not include individuals who perform construction work. Thus, Mr. Merritt could not breach a "professional duty" as contemplated by the statute. The Court also noted that the contract at issue only recognized Merritt Construction, LLC as a licensed contractor and did not reference any contractor's license held by Mr. Merritt personally.

Finally, the Court addressed the final exception to limited liability: "negligent or wrongful act." Plaintiff asserted that the term "negligence" in the statute only required proof of a tort by the individual. The Court quickly rejected this argument, noting that such an interpretation would improperly expand the liability of LLC members.

Rather, the Court set forth four factors to assist in the analysis under the last "negligence" exception: 1) whether a member's conduct could be fairly characterized as a traditionally recognized tort; 2) whether a member's conduct could be fairly characterized as a crime, for which a natural person, not a juridical person, could be held culpable; 3) whether the conduct at issue was required by, or was in furtherance of, a contract between the claimant and the LLC; and 4) whether the conduct at issue was done outside the member's capacity as a member.

It appears from the Ogea Court's focus that the prior analysis for "piercing the veil" of an LLC has perhaps been set aside and replaced with a new analysis which considers the exceptions to limited liability listed in La. R.S. 12:1320. However, the Court failed to expressly state that the prior analysis is improper and therefore no longer applicable. For now, it appears that the rules for piercing the veil of an LLC have changed but the true impact of Ogea remains to be seen.

Posted by:

Disclaimer

Keogh Cox & Wilson, Ltd. provides this blog as a public service for general information only. The materials contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments or even express the opinion of all or even most of Keogh Cox attorneys. Such material does not constitute legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship. Keogh Cox and all contributing author(s) expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this Web site and Blog and expect that no reliance will be made upon the information provided.

Continue Reading

Explore legal perspectives on the issues shaping Louisiana's key industries and courtrooms.

Insight

Hurricane Ida: Supreme Court Suspends Certain Deadlines

In response to Hurricane Ida, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued three Orders which affect litigation in Louisiana:

Proceeding before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Clerk of Court’s office will be closed until September 19, 2021. All filings due during this period of closure shall be deemed timely filed if filed on or before Monday, September 20, 2021.
Cases scheduled to be heard on the September docket (September 7-9) are postponed to the October docket, the week of October 18, 2021.

Civil Cases Statewide

All prescriptive and peremptive periods are hereby suspended statewide for a period of thirty days commencing from August 26, 2021.
All periods of abandonment are hereby suspended statewide for thirty days commencing from August 26, 2021.

Criminal Matters

The Court also extended time periods in criminal matters but limited the order to parishes most impacted by the storm.

Individual District Courts and Courts of Appeal may take additional actions because of the damage and loss of power experienced in multiple areas of the state.

Insight

The Duty to Defend Continues to Evolve in Louisiana

Louisiana is a "direct action" state that continues to present new challenges for insurers. Over the years, Louisiana courts have expanded the duty to defend. This expansion created pitfalls for the insurer and forced the provision of a complete defense, even when all or a majority of the claim was not covered by the insurance policy. However, some of this expansion has been drawn back by the Louisiana Supreme Court which recently ruled that, in latent, long-term exposure cases, the duty to defend is to be spread across a number of years--as opposed to the arbitrary selection of a single insurer to defend the entirety of the case. This change presents opportunities for immediate risk transfer and reimbursement to recoup what can be significant dollars invested in the defense of legacy and environmental actions.

A General Overview: Like many other states, an insurer’s duty to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims. The duty to defend is determined by the factual allegations contained in the plaintiff's petition, which are to be broadly construed. American Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki, 230 So.2d 253 (La. 1969). The court examines the duty under the “eight corners” rule which means that the duty attaches if a review of the four corners of the policy and the petition raises the potential for coverage and coverage is not unambiguously excluded. Once a complaint states one claim within the policy's coverage, the insurer has the duty to defend the entire claim, even though other claims in the complaint fall outside the policy's coverage. Treadway v. Vaughn, 633 So.2d 626 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 635 So.2d 233 (La. 1994).

Execution of the defense duty can present big challenges given that Louisiana is a direct action state where the attorney is often called upon to represent both the insured and the insurer. If the insurer does not properly handle the assignment, coverage positions can be waived. See Steptore v. Masco Const. Co., 643 So. 2d 1213 (La. 8/18/94); Sosebee v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 701 F.3d 1012, 1020 (5th Cir. 2012). Additionally, insurers must recognize that Louisiana has recognized Cumis (insured selected) counsel in situations when coverage positions issue. Belanger v. Gabriel Chemicals, Inc., 00-0747 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/23/01); 787 So.2d 559, writ denied, 01-2289 802 (La. 2001); So.2d 612 (citing 46 C.J.S.§ 1157 (1993). In such a situation, independent counsel must be separately retained to represent the diverging interests.

When is the duty to defend discharged: The court will determine whether exhaustion of policy limits will terminate an insurer’s obligation to defend the insured on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration whether the settlement was made in good faith. Holtzclaw v. Falco, 355 So.2d 1279 (La. 1977). An insurer that “hastily enters a questionable settlement simply to avoid further defense obligations under the policy” does not act in good faith and may be held liable for damages caused to its insured. Pareti v. Sentry Indemnity Co., 536 So.2d 417, 423 (La. 1988). The timing of its withdrawal from the suit is critical to a determination of the insurer’s good faith. A tender of policy limits into the registry of the court may terminate the duty to defend; however, the tender must comply with all of the statutory requirements (to include the admission of liability). In this connection, an insurer who wishes to tender its limits and admit liability may well face a challenge from the insured that such action is a breach of its good faith obligations. Pareti, supra.

Long-Tail Exposure Cases: For some time now, Louisiana courts have recognized the concept of “horizontal spreading” over a number of years based on the “trigger” of coverage each year a policy was in place. See Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So. 2d 1058 (La. 1992) and Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Cal. Union Ins. Co., 859 So. 2d 167, 192 (La. App. 2003),writ denied, 861 So. 2d 578 (2003). The practical effect is to hold each insurer liable to indemnify only for its pro-rata time on the risk and, if the insured was not covered for a period of time, it bore its own pro-rata portion of the risk.

Until recently, the courts held that the duty to defend in such actions was a solidary (joint and several) obligation, meaning that the insured could select any carrier and require it to defend the entire claim. Simply, the courts held that the duty to defend was not subject to proration such that an insurer who was on the risk for a very short time could be compelled to pay all of the fees and costs and must then file a reimbursement action to collect from other insurers. But, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that defense costs are now subject to proration in the same manner as with indemnity. Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 15-0588 (La. 9/7/16); 200 So 3d 277.

At the outset, almost every long-tail exposure claim is a complex action that can take years to resolve. It is nearly always a very expensive proposition in terms of defense costs. The Arceneaux decision has meaningful, real-world impact upon both the insurer and the insured.

From the insurer’s perspective, it can easily calculate its percentage of time on the risk and thereby readily ascertain what it owes in the defense of the action. Insurers can applaud the fact that they no longer pay for uninsured time on the risk or the portion of recalcitrant insurers who do not wish to “participate” in a joint defense.

From the insured’s perspective, new incentive exists to scour all avenues to find older policies that may have been on the risk to avoid having direct participation in defense costs. In this regard, the insured will now have strong monetary incentive to keep all policies on file (or to take depositions of agents and brokers to identify coverage that may have been in place). Of course, insurers who otherwise might have remained unknown might now have an active role in long-tail exposure cases.

John Wolff is a member of the management committee and a senior partner at Keogh Cox with more than thirty years of experience. John has made his mark in a practice that has included complex litigation, commercial disputes, serious injury, bad-faith and insurance coverage, legacy/long-term exposure, and other matters. He has litigated numerous significant cases in state and federal courts and regularly appears before the courts of appeals in and out of the state. John has devoted attention to non-profit boards dedicated to assisting at-risk children. In his spare time, he enjoys spending time with wife, his three children, and grandchildren, playing tennis, and hiking.

Insight

Louisiana Appeal Courts Prohibit Direct Negligence Claims Against Employer; US District Court Uses Rule to Limit Discovery

The 1^st Circuit Court of Appeal recently ruled that a Plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining a direct negligence claim (negligent hire, negligent supervision, etc.) against an employer when the defendant/employer admits the employee was in the course and scope of the employment, stating:

“(A) plaintiff cannot maintain a direct negligence claim, such as negligent hiring, training, supervision, etc., against an employer, while simultaneously maintaining a claim against the negligent employee for which the plaintiff seeks to hold the employer vicariously liable, after the employer had admitted that the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the alleged conduct.” See Elee v. White, - - So. 3d - - (La. App. 1 Cir 7/24/20) 2020 WL 4251974.

The ruling in Elee joins the Louisiana 5^th Circuit court of appeal which entered a similar ruling. See Landry v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, 289 So.3d 177 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/19).

Meanwhile, the federal courts in Louisiana, under the Erie doctrine, reached differing results. In Thomas v. Chambers, 2019 WL 1670745 (E.D. La. 2019)(Vance, J.) and Dennis v. Collins, 2016 WL 6637973 (W.D. La. 2016 (Hicks, J.), the District Courts acknowledged the holding outlined above. However, Judge Cain, sitting in the Lake Charles division of the Western District ruled to the contrary. See Roe v. Safety National, 18-cv-1353 (W.D. La. 2020).

But, what happens when the defendants further admit sole fault for the accident? The result was discussed in Ferguson v. Lenoir et al. Notably, Magistrate Judge Hornsby, ruling on defendants’ request for a protective order, found that defendants admission of fault eliminated the need to reconcile the different rulings when it found that “(no) evidence of (employer’s) negligent hiring, training, supervision or entrustment can raise (employer’s) percentage of fault above 100.” See Case 5:17-cv-01570-SMH-MLH Document 90 Filed 06/30/20 (p 2 of 6). As a natural consequence of this rule, the court recognized that a protective order limiting further discovery was appropriate. Plaintiff appealed the magistrate’s Order, but US District Judge Hicks denied Plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed Judge Hornsby’s ruling. Case 5:17-cv-01570-SMH-MLH Document 122 Filed 09/22/20.

John has been practicing over 30 years and is a Senior Partner with firm where he serves on the Management Committee. He has devoted attention to non-profit boards dedicated to assisting at risk children. He enjoys time with his three children and grandchildren. He also enjoys tennis and hiking.