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

What's the Delay? Contractor Delay Damages Under the Public Bid Law

Generally, a provision in a construction contract for private work limiting the contractor's right to recover additional costs arising from delays outside of the contractor's control may be enforceable. However, under the Public Bid Law, such a provision has been found to be against public policy. La. R.S. 38:2216 prohibits any public contract provision that purports to waive, release or extinguish the rights of a contractor to recover delay damages if the delay was caused in whole or in part by the acts or omission of the public entity.

A recent First Circuit decision struck down a contract provision that purported to limit a contractor's right to damages in a public contract. In F.H. Myers Const. Corp. v. State, Div. of Admin. Office of Facility Planning & Control, 2013-2153 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/18/14), reh'g denied (July 22, 2014), a general contractor brought an action against the State for breach of contract, seeking payments for extended-fixed job site overhead.

The State argued that the contract contemplated that the contractor could recover extended-fixed job site overhead only if there was a complete stoppage of work solely attributable to the State. The contractor argued that the contract provision was in violation of La. R.S. 38:2216.

The court found that La. R.S. 38:2216 contemplates that a contractor who is a party to a public contract shall be able to recover for any delay they may suffer from the fault of the State entity. Because the contract waived the contractor's rights to seek damages for extended-fixed job site overhead for any delay short of a complete stoppage of work, the contract imposed a stricter limit on damages than the statute allows. The court also noted that the contract only allowed for damages where the State was 100% at fault, whereas the statute allows recovery even if the State is only partially at fault. As such, the provisions at issue were held to be void and unenforceable.

Insight

Pass-Through Claims and Prescription

In Couvillion Group, LLC v. Plaquemine Parish Government, the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether the general contractor could recover “pass-through claims” against the owner where those claims would be time-barred if brought directly by the subcontractors. “Pass-through claims” have been described as damage claims that subcontractors “pass through” to the contractor to prosecute an action against the project owner to recover those damages.

In Couvillion, the contractor sued the Parish for delay damages. The trial court awarded $2,782,724 in delay damages, $300,000 of which was for delays incurred by two of the subcontractors.

On appeal, the Parish argued that the contractor could not recover the pass-through claims because any claims for delay that the subcontractors had against the contractor were prescribed (time-barred). The subcontractors sent demand letters after substantial completion in 2013 but did not file suit against the contractor. Under Louisiana law, contract claims are subject to a 10-year prescriptive period. The Parish asserted that by the time trial occurred in 2024, the subcontractor claims had prescribed.

The Fourth Circuit recognized that subcontractors often pass their claims through the contractor to prosecute against the owner to recover those damages. The contractor included those claims in the lawsuit filed against the owner in 2015. When several parties share a cause of action, suit by one party interrupts prescription as to all parties. As such, the court held that prescription was interrupted, and the contractor could recover the pass-through claims against the owner.

This case highlights the importance of identifying and properly preserving pass-through claims early in litigation.

References:

Couvillion Grp., LLC v. Plaquemines Par. Gov't, 2025-0356 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/7/26), 430 So. 3d 1175, writ denied, 2026-00217 (La. 5/12/26), 430 So. 3d 1090.

‍

Insight

Louisiana Supreme Court Clarifies “Reasonably Anticipated Use” in Product Liability Claim

Plaintiff Brady Hardisty and a coworker attempted to use chains attached to a tractor to pull a Caterpillar bulldozer from the mud. A chain snapped and struck plaintiff in the head and face. Hardisty sued Caterpillar under allegations that its product was unreasonably dangerous. Caterpillar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing Hardisty was not engaged in a “reasonably anticipated use” of its product. Both the trial court and the appellate court identified “material issues of fact” in denying Caterpillar’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, and entered summary judgment for Caterpillar.^

Caterpillar cited its Operation Manual that warned against the use of chains and gave a safer alternative. Hardisty asserted that material issues of fact existed as to whether Caterpillar “knew or should have known” that users were not following product warnings. Hardisty offered opinions from its expert witness that: (1) Caterpillar knew of the danger because it warned against the use of chains and (2) experience showed that the use of chains was a common practice in the industry.

The Hardisty court reasoned that the expert’s own “experience” was insufficient to refute Caterpillar’s evidence that it received no report of prior similar accidents. However, the Court cited to earlier case law for the proposition that even actual knowledge would not defeat the motion, stating:

The jurisprudence has recognized that knowledge of the potential and actual intentional abuse of a product does not create a question of fact on the question of reasonably anticipated use when the manufacturer expressly warned against the danger of such misuse.

In a recent case handled by Keogh Cox, the federal Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, citing Hardisty for the proposition that a manufacturer may reasonably expect that its users will follow “clear and direct” product warnings. See Friels v. Louisiana State Administrative Office of Rick Management, et al.

References:

^Hardisty v. Walker, 25-00239 (La. 6/3/25), 410 So,3d 774.

Louisiana State Administrative Office of Rick Management, et al., No. 24-30688, 8/15/25. Opinion not designated for publication. 5^th Cir. R. 47.5.