Governor Issues 2025 Insurance Reforms

The Judicial Interest Rate for 2024 in the State of Louisiana has been set at 8.75%. This is the highest the rate has been since 2007.

Generally, judicial interest is interest payable on a judgment that has not been satisfied. Depending on the underlying basis for the judgment, the date that the interest begins to accrue can be before the judgment is rendered. For example, La. R.S. 13:4203 provides, “Legal interest shall attach from date of judicial demand, on all judgments, sounding in damages, ‘ex delicto’, which may be rendered by any of the courts.”

In Workers Compensation matters, La. R.S. 23:1201.3 states, “Any compensation awarded and all payments thereof directed to be made by order of the workers' compensation judge shall bear judicial interest from the date compensation was due until the date of satisfaction. The interest rate shall be fixed at the rate in effect on the date the claim for benefits was filed with the office of workers' compensation administration.”

La. R. S. 13:4202 sets forth the method for the annual calculation of judicial interest in Louisiana: “The commissioner of financial institutions shall ascertain, on the first business day of October of each year, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors approved ‘discount rate’ published daily in the Wall Street Journal. The effective judicial interest rate for the calendar year following the calculation date shall be three and one-quarter percentage points above the discount rate as ascertained by the commissioner.” In consideration of these factors set by statute, the Judicial Interest Rate for 2024 will be set at 8.75%.

For context, the historic rates for the last 20 years are:

2023- 6.50%

2022- 3.50%

2021- 3.50%

2020- 5.75%

2019- 6.00%

2018- 5.00%

2017- 4.25%

2016- 4.00%

2015- 4.00%

2014- 4.00%

2013- 4.00%

2012- 4.00%

2011- 4.00%

2010- 3.75%

2009- 5.50%

2008- 8.50%

2007- 9.50%

2006- 8.00%

2005- 6.00%

2004- 5.25%

A recent decision from the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal re-affirms the merchant liability rules. In Carolyn R. Miller and Steven Rathjen v. Willis Communications, et. al., 19-787 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/24/20), the plaintiff was an elderly patron of an AT&T store. Plaintiff and her daughter were assisted at the customer service desk, and plaintiff took a seat in a rolling chair. When she attempted to stand up, the rolling chair moved, and she fell to the floor breaking a hip.

Plaintiff filed suit under the merchant’s liability statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Per the statute, if a negligence claim is brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant’s premises for injuries sustained because of a fall, then plaintiff must prove: 1) that the condition of the merchant’s premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; 2) that the merchant created the risk or had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition; and 3) that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care to address the unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiff argued that an unreasonable risk of harm was created when she was given a chair on rollers on flooring allegedly unsafe for use with a rolling chair.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and entered summary judgment. The appellate court found that the critical element of plaintiff’s burden of proof was missing – any defect in the rolling chair. Plaintiff admitted that the chair was not defective. Instead, she argued that she should not have been given a rolling chair to sit in because of her age, obvious mobility issues, and because the rolling chair was unsafe on the flooring of the store.

Evidence was presented that: 1) plaintiff’s daughter was able to maneuver the rolling chair without incident; 2) the daughter did not believe that plaintiff would have trouble navigating the rolling chair; and 3) no other customer had ever fallen out of one of the rolling chairs. Simply, what occurred at the AT&T store was an accident, for which AT&T and its employees were not responsible. Plaintiff, well aware of her own physical limitations, chose to sit in a rolling chair that she physically was unable to get out of on her own. Based upon this evidence, the court reasoned that plaintiff did not prove that: 1) the rolling chair posed an unreasonable risk of harm; or 2) the merchant possessed actual or constructive knowledge of any defect.

Following decisions which imposed harsh standards upon retailers, the Louisiana Legislature adopted the merchant’s liability statute to limit recovery to cases involving true negligence. The Carolyn R. Miller decision demonstrates that the statute is properly used in motion practice to resolve cases where the merchant lacks advance knowledge of the claimed unreasonable risk. Sometimes, an accident is just an accident.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense and workers compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.

In Hawkins v. Hi Nabor Supermarket, LLC, the First Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of Hi Nabor finding that Hi Nabor could not be liable to the plaintiff for injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell over a stocking cart while she was shopping in its store.^

The plaintiff claimed the stocking cart created an unreasonably dangerous condition that was foreseeable to the defendant. Hi Nabor filed a motion for summary judgment in response and attached affidavits of its employees, the store’s surveillance video of the incident, and excerpts of the plaintiff’s deposition.

The plaintiff failed to timely oppose Hi Nabor’s motion and then filed a motion for leave to file a late opposition. However, she did not attach or file any documents or exhibits in support of her opposition. The trial court granted Hi Nabor’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed the decision. On appeal, the plaintiff argued (1) summary judgment was granted “solely because an opposition was filed late” and (2) there was in sufficient proof that movers were entitled to judgment.

In response to the plaintiff’s first argument, the Court addressed the plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the defendants’ motion. See our prior blog for analysis of the impact of a party’s failure to timely oppose a motion for summary judgment here. The Court noted that a failure to timely oppose a motion for summary judgment does not automatically require that the motion be granted. However, if the mover meets its burden in its motion, and the plaintiff fails to file an opposition, the motion should be granted.

The court examined whether the defendant met its burden to support its motion in response to the plaintiff’s second argument. The Court found the defendant produced evidence to show that the stocking cart did not present an unreasonably dangerous condition such that liability could not attach.

The Court found that “stocking carts are necessary and useful in grocery stores to restock shelves, and that their common use and obviousness to a shopper make any risk slight.”* Further, surveillance video showed the size of the stocking cart (its’ tall sides were approximately the height of the plaintiff), the placement of caution cones around the stocking cart and the Plaintiff's interactions with the cart prior to the accident.

In light of the evidence filed in support of its motion, the Court found Hi Nabor met its burden of proof to show that plaintiff could not establish the stocking cart presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable. When the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to meet her burden of showing genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the cart presented an unreasonable risk of harm, summary judgment was properly granted. The Court's decision highlights the importance of procedural requirements and reaffirms the principle that mere allegations of danger are insufficient and cannot defeat summary judgment without substantive proof.

References:

^Hawkins v. Hi Nabor Supermarket, LLC, 2023-0978 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/23/24), 2024 WL 743080.

*Citing Russell v. Morgan's Bestway of Louisiana, LLC, 47,914 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/13), 113 So. 3d 448, 453.