Court Finds Real Estate Agents Are Not Required to Research the Truthfulness of Their Client’s Representations

In Webber v. City of Shreveport, No. 56,705-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. Dec. 17, 2025), the Louisiana Second Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a trip-and-fall case involving a cracked sidewalk.

The plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell over an uneven area of the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s business. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish (1) a defect creating an unreasonable risk of harm or (2) the defendant knew or should have known of any defect. The defendant produced evidence to show it had no notice of any defect and no prior accidents in the area where the plaintiff fell. The defendant also produced photographs showing no holes in the area and no differences in elevation exceeding one inch.

In support of her claims, the plaintiff provided evidence including testimony from a corporate representative of the defendant who admitted to knowledge of cracks in the sidewalk prior to the plaintiff’s accident.

However, the court importantly distinguished that knowledge of a condition is not the same as knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous condition. The defendant maintained that not all cracks in sidewalks present unreasonably dangerous conditions. It also offered proof that the subject portion of the sidewalk was traveled every day as the building’s main passage. There were no prior complaints regarding its condition, nor were there any prior accidents.

Based upon this evidence, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the cracks in the sidewalk were unreasonably dangerous or that the defendants had any actual or constructive notice of the defect’s existence. Summary judgment was affirmed in the defendant’s favor.

Reference: Webber v. City of Shreveport, 56,705 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/17/25), 425 So. 3d 485.

In Louisiana, we are all too familiar with natural disasters. Every “hurricane season,” we hope the storm causes only minor inconvenience; but history teaches us to prepare for more. When these storms come, home and business owners inevitably make post-disaster insurance claims to repair the damage. While the specific amount owed for property damage is determined by the terms of the policy, the amount received may be affected by when (and if) the damage is repaired.

An insurer will work with you to identify the “actual cash value” or “ACV” of the damaged property when handling your claim. “ACV” is defined as the cost to repair/replace the damage, less depreciation. Jouve v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2010-1522 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/17/11), 74 So.3d 220. Many policies provide that an insurer is not obligated to provide you with more than the “ACV” of the damage, unless and until you actually make repairs. Later, you can recover the depreciation amount once you submit proof that the repairs are complete. Courts have enforced such provisions in many cases, regardless of the type of loss.

So, what happens if you never make the repairs? Simply, the insurance company may never owe the depreciation. In Hackman v. EMC Ins. Co., 07-552 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/25/08), 984 So.2d 139, the plaintiff’s property was damaged by a fire. The insurer paid the ACV of the loss but withheld depreciation pending repairs. The plaintiff never made the repairs and ultimately sold the property. The Court ruled the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the difference.

Similarly, in Jouve v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., supra, the plaintiffs’ home was damaged by wind during Hurricane Katrina. Their insurer paid the ACV of the loss. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sold the home “as is” and sought recovery for the depreciation. The court reviewed the policy and found the plaintiffs’ sale of the home without repairs limited their recovery to ACV.

As with any insurance claim, you should always read your policy before losses occur to ensure you understand its terms and conditions. Maybe add this as an unusual step to your hurricane checklist. As these cases show, your ultimate recovery can be affected by what you do, or do not do, following the loss.

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v. Markel American Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment finding that the insured’s failure to cooperate violated the policy’s coverage terms and voided coverage.

The dispute arose from a commercial first-party property loss following Hurricane Ida. The insurer moved quickly to adjust the claim by retaining an independent adjuster and engineers to evaluate the damage to and value of the insured property. It also asked the insured to produce documentation needed to complete the adjustment, including records of installation costs, monthly revenues, and repair estimates. The insured did not respond.

Additionally, the insurer sent numerous emails over the course of the claim requesting information about (1) the costs the insured had incurred; (2) documentation supporting the income loss claim, along with quotes, estimates, and proposals for repairs; and (3) the scope of work for testing and repairs. However, most of these requests went unanswered.

Based on this evidence, the court determined that the insured violated the terms of the policy because it failed to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. Most notably, the insured obtained repair estimates and proposals from its own contractor and withheld them from the insurer until after suit was filed. The insured also never submitted a completed proof of loss, even though the policy required submission of such a document that included estimates and “other reasonable information” the insurer needed to settle the loss. These acts showed the insured failed to “cooperate with [the insurer] in performing all acts required by this policy.”

The insurer showed that it pursued the information diligently and that the insured’s breach was both material and prejudicial. The court found (1) the insurer had documented repeated, specific requests for nearly a year, (2) the withheld documents went directly to quantifying the loss, and (3) the insured’s noncompliance deprived the insurer of its right to investigate the insured’s claim.

As a result, the court granted summary judgment finding no genuine issue of material fact relating to the insured’s breach of the policy’s cooperation clause. The insured was precluded from bringing a breach of insurance contract claim and therefore, without a valid contractual claim, the insured also could not pursue a bad faith claim against the insurer.

References:

South Alexander Development I, LLC v. Markel American Insurance Co., CV 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, 2026 WL 1819120 (M.D. La. June 24, 2026).