CORPORATE DEPOSITIONS: Recent Amendment to Federal Rules Mark a Positive Change

Louisiana law favors the settlement of disputes. With a settlement, both sides agree to avoid costly litigation and obtain a certain, negotiated result. While neither side is completely happy with the result in a typical settlement, the case is at least closed and the financial and emotional drain of litigation is ended. But the recent decision in The Marietta Trust and The Warren Trust v. J.R. Logging, Inc., Fair Hills Farm, LLC, Jerry Avants, Jr., Thomas Keaty, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company, 2016 CA 1136 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/11/17) shows what can happen when one of the parties change their mind. This case is important because it calls into question whether an exchange of emails is sufficient to reach a final settlement.

The Marietta Trust case involved a dispute regarding the wrongful cutting of timber and the parties seemingly came to a resolution. Via email, the case was negotiated and the terms were agreed upon. Formal settlement documents were drawn up and money was exchanged. However, when the time came to execute the final documents, one set of defendants refused to sign the paperwork. This refusal to sign came after the attorney for these defendants directly stated in an email that his "clients have agreed to the settlement." Id. at *4. In response to the refusal to sign, the other parties filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement which was denied by the Trial Court.

Settlement agreements are governed by the Louisiana Civil Code art. 3071 which provides that litigation can be resolved via settlement or compromise. A settlement agreement can take two forms: 1) recitation in open court; or 2) a writing. “The purpose of the writing requirement is to serve as proof of the agreement and the acquiescence therein.” Marietta Trust, 2016 CA 11336, Id. at *3. The writing must be signed by the parties or their agents. “Until the parties sign a written document or documents evincing their consent to the terms of the proposed agreement, a party is free to change his or her mind.” Id. at *3. Prior courts have found that emails meet the "writing" requirements. See, Geer v. BP America Production Co., 2014-450 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/5/14), 150 So. 3d 621; Dozier v. Rhodus, 2008-1813 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/5/09), 17 So. 3d 402.

The appellate court in Marietta Trust refused to enforce the "settlement." The court found that the exchange of emails was insufficient to meet the "writing" requirement of Civil Code article 3071 because neither the emails nor any other evidence showed that the attorney possessed "the express consent necessary to accept the terms of the settlement." Id. at *3.

When is a settlement not a settlement? Maybe when it came to you through your inbox. So, if an email from the attorney is not sufficient to perfect a settlement, what can we do? The answer offered by the 1st Circuit is to either: 1. Recite in open court; or 2. Obtain a writing that includes the client’s express consent given to the attorney to settle the case (presumably for the amount in the writing).

The nation’s first suit seeking a declaration of coverage under a commercial property policy for business interruption and extra expenses incurred as a result of COVID-19 was filed in a Louisiana state court on March 20, 2020. Since then, similar suits have been filed across the nation by restaurants, casinos, dentists, dive shops, movie theatres, repertory theatre companies, etc. Clearly, the same coverage issues raised in the Louisiana case will be litigated throughout the nation.

The suit in Cajun Conti, LLC, et al v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al, Suit No. 2020-02558, was filed on March 16, 2020, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs, doing business as Oceana Grill, a restaurant in the French Quarter, allege coverage should be declared to exist because: 1) the property policy is an “all risks” policy such that all risks are covered unless the insurer can clearly and specifically establish an exclusion from coverage; 2) the policy does not contain any exclusion “for losses from a virus or global pandemic;” 3) the virus has “physically impact[ed] public and private property” as it “physically infects and stays on the surface of objects or materials, ‘fomites,’ for up to twenty-eight days;” 4) such “contamination … [is] a direct physical loss needing remediation;” and, alternatively and in addition, 5) the current and future state orders limiting its operations serve to trigger the civil authority provisions of its policy.

A key issue in Cajun Conti as well as in the other COVID-19 business interruption coverage litigation will be whether the existence of the novel coronavirus constitutes a “direct physical loss or damage” under the intendment of an all risks property policy. The Cajun Conti plaintiffs cite to Widder v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2011-0196 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/10/11), 82 So.3d 294, writ denied, 2011-2336 (La. 12/2/11) for the premise that the existence of a hazardous condition that renders the insured property unusable or uninhabitable is sufficient to constitute a “physical loss or damage” sufficient to trigger coverage. Notably, in Widder, the actual presence of inorganic lead in the insured property was confirmed to exist and coverage was therefore available. Because policyholders have the burden to establish the existence of “physical loss or damage,” reliance on Widder may require the Cajun Conti plaintiffs to establish coronavirus was actually present in their property or that its presence otherwise caused their property to be unusable or uninhabitable. Presence in the community may not be sufficient to prove the coronavirus made the insured property uninhabitable or unusable.

One of the items of proof required for the triggering of coverage under the civil authority provisions of a commercial property policy is that the alleged business loss was caused by an action by the civil authority that prohibited access to the insured premises. Relying on out-of-state jurisprudence, one Louisiana federal court has determined this factor requires proof that access to the insured premises be “actually and completely prohibited,” which is not satisfied if the access is merely “limited or hampered.” Kean, Miller v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, C.A. No. 06-770 (M.D. La. Aug. 29, 2007), 2007 WL 2489711, *4-*6. The state orders expressly referenced in the Cajun Conti suit would appear not to satisfy this standard as they served only to limit occupancy and required earlier closures. Even the subsequent stay-at-home orders [Proclamation Number 33 JBE 2020 and 41 JBE 2020, issued respectively on March 22, 2020 and April 2, 2020], may likely be insufficient to satisfy this requirement as they do not expressly mandate closure of restaurants, but simply require restaurants to “reduce operations to continue minimum contact with members of the public,” expressly allow for curbside delivery, drive-thru, and delivery services, and only prohibit the consumption of food and beverages on site.

The specific facts of each business interruption claim and the terms of the relevant policy should be considered in every occasion. Yet, these suits may face problems of proof generally. For now, we expect the novel suits to continue.

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.

Nancy B. Gilbert is a partner with Keogh Cox in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a puzzle-solver by nature, and specializes in providing clear and in-depth analysis of complex litigation issues.

A party that wants to rely upon the testimony of a treating physician to support a personal injury case in federal court should be sure to consult the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Different rules will apply depending on the scope of the treating physician’s testimony.

Rule 26 sets two standards for expert disclosures. 26(a)(2)(C) sets a “lower standard” that typically applies to treating physicians. Under this standard, the treating physician may provide testimony beyond his personal knowledge, but he must base his opinions on “facts or data obtained or observed in the course of the sequence of events giving rise to the litigation.” LaShip, LLC v. Hayward Baker, Inc., 296 F.R.D. 475 (E.D.La. Nov. 13, 2013). Further, the physician may be permitted to testify regarding causation and future medical treatment if these opinions come from the doctor’s actual treatment of the party.

Under this “lower standard,” the party seeking to offer the physician’s testimony, usually the plaintiff, must timely disclose: (1) the subject matter on which the treating physician is expected to present evidence; and (2) a summary of the facts and opinions to which he is expected to testify. Importantly, production of a plaintiff’s medical records alone is not sufficient – the plaintiff must actually provide a summary of the physician’s opinions. See e.g. Williams v. State, 2015 WL 5438596, at *4 (M.D. La. Sept. 14, 2015). If the party fails to timely disclose this information, he runs a substantial risk of having his testimony excluded from trial.

Where the physician’s testimony goes beyond the medical records or his treatment of the plaintiff, a “higher standard” can apply to the physician’s testimony. Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The physician may be required to produce a complete expert report to disclose: (1) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (2) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; (3) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (4) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of publications authored in the last 4 years; (5) a list of all cases the expert has been used as an expert at trial or in depositions; and (6) a statement of the compensation the witness is to be paid for his work and testimony.

Application of this “higher standard” often turns on the frequency and recency of the physician’s treatment. Courts are also more likely to apply the higher standard when the physician’s opinions are based general scientific knowledge of the plaintiff’s condition rather than his actual treatment of the plaintiff.

John Grinton, a Keogh Cox associate whose practice areas include commercial and construction litigation. When he is not practicing law, John spends most of his time with his wife and son, and their two dogs.