To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate: LA Supreme Court Rejects Federal Court Position

In Dunlap v. Empire Trading Group, LLC, the buyers of a home sued the seller and the seller’s real estate agent for fraud after the home flooded three times in the first year after they bought the home. The seller was a home-flipper who disclosed two prior flooding incidents, both of which occurred during the ten months the seller owned the home.

However, the plaintiffs later discovered the home had a substantial flooding history when they requested a flood insurance quote from the National Flood Insurance Program. The quote included a report that identified eighteen incidents of flooding and flood insurance claims at the property over the ten years before the plaintiffs purchased their home.

The plaintiffs argued the seller’s agent committed fraud because she concealed her knowledge of previous flood claims. The seller’s agent moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove that she knew about any of the prior undisclosed flooding incidents. The plaintiffs had no direct evidence to dispute the agent’s defense.

Instead, they argued that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to defeat the motion. They claimed that because the seller had a flood policy on the home, it also would have received the same flood claim history the plaintiffs received in connection with the same federal program. However, the plaintiffs had no evidence to show the seller, or anyone affiliated with the agent’s firm, actually received the flood claim history as they alleged.

Based upon these facts, the court agreed that without evidence that the seller’s agent actually received the flood claim history or otherwise had knowledge of it, the plaintiffs could not carry their burden of proving misrepresentation by the agent.

Case Reference: Dunlap v. Empire Trading Group, LLC, 2021-0180 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/18/21), 331 So. 3d 932.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently announced a decision that could alter the impact of Louisiana's "Direct Action Statute." See Soileau v. Smith True Value and Rental, et. al., 2012-1711, -- So. 3d ---.In Soileau, the injured plaintiff initiated suit after a John Deere front-end loader malfunctioned. She settled with a number of parties but proceeded to trial against the store from which the machinery was rented, the store's owners (collectively, the Smiths) and the Smiths' insurer, Hartford Insurance Company.The plaintiff sued Hartford under Louisiana's Direct Action Statute, which was enacted to provide plaintiffs with a "direct" right of action against a tortfeasor's insurance company. In many other states, a plaintiff cannot sue a tortfeasor's insurer directly as this cause of action is not permitted by the common law. Insured Lloyd's v. Bobo, 156 S. E. 2d 518 (Ga. App. 1967).Generally, the Direct Action Statute allows a plaintiff to assert a claim against both the insured and its insurer. However, suit may be brought against the insurer only in the few exceptions outlined in the statute.The plaintiff's original petition in Soileau complied with the statute because it joined both Hartford and its insureds, the Smiths. During the trial, the plaintiff verbally dismissed the Smiths from the suit, not seeking "any damages personally against them."Following the dismissal, Hartford was the only party who remained. The plaintiff did not expressly reserve any rights against Hartford who then sought dismissal on two grounds:

1. Hartford according to its policy was obligated it to pay only "those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages." Because Hartford's insureds were fully released (and therefore could not be "legally obligated to pay damages"), Hartford denied liability.
2. Hartford also asserted that the dismissal terminated the plaintiff's right to sue Hartford under the Direct Action Statute because none of the six circumstances allowing suit to be brought against Hartford alone existed.

The trial court rejected both of Hartford's arguments. The jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $9.4 million and allocated 15% of the fault to the Smiths. Judgment was then rendered against Hartford. Hartford appealed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with Hartford's arguments and dismissed it from the suit. The Louisiana Supreme Court accepted writs.In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff maintained her right of action against Hartford despite the dismissal. The Court accepted the plaintiff's position that she intended to reserve her rights against Hartford and cited to Civil Code article 1802 which provides that the renunciation of rights against one solidary obligor "must be express." Therefore, because the plaintiff did not expressly release Hartford, its release would not be presumed.The majority also ruled that the Direct Action Statute did not bar the plaintiff's claim against Hartford. Under the Court's reasoning, the circumstances outlined in the Direct Action Statute are relevant only at the time suit is filed. Thereafter, after suit is "brought," a plaintiff can freely dismiss the insured and maintain its suit against the insurer alone.The Court expressed that its holding is consistent with the statute because the naming of the Smiths in the caption of the suit allowed the jury to recognize that the suit was not just against a "company." In support, the Court quoted from one of the drafters of the Direct Action Statute who testified as follows:[T]he purpose of the bill is to permit the trier of fact to see that there are two human beings involved, a plaintiff and an insured defendant, rather than just a victim and a company.However, the plaintiff's counsel in Soileau was allowed to inform the jury during closing arguments that Hartford was the only defendant left in the lawsuit and that the Smiths could not be held liable.Three justices dissented.One dissenting opinion reasoned that Hartford should not be held liable because it could never be liable for the conduct of a dismissed insured who could not be "legally liable to pay damages."All dissenters complained that the majority's holding will, in effect, allow plaintiffs to sidestep the requirements of the Direct Action Statute. Justice Guidry wrote that the majority ruling will allow plaintiffs to "circumvent" the direct action. Justice Victory added that the Court's holding allows a "plaintiff to name the insured along with the insurer as defendants in order to comply with the statute, but then dismiss the insured and proceed at trial against the insurer alone..."　 The true impact of Soileau remains to be seen.

In Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014-2362 (La. 6/30/15), — So.3d—, 2015 WL 3972370, the Louisiana Supreme Court definitively ruled that Louisiana law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence. This resolved a disputed issue of Louisiana law.

The Reynolds plaintiff was involved in a multi-car accident in which his airbag failed to deploy. His insurance company paid what was owed for the totaled vehicle under its policy and, in the normal course of business, disposed of the vehicle by auctioning it to a salvage yard. Plaintiff’s petition included a claim against the auto manufacturer for the airbag failure. It also included a claim against his insurance company and the salvage yard for failure to preserve the vehicle as evidence likely to be used in litigation.

The Supreme Court classified the insurer and salvage yard as "third parties" to the lawsuit and categorized the plaintiff's claims against them as a negligent spoliation theory. In rejecting these third-party claims, the Court declared a claim for negligent spoliation to be against Louisiana public policy.

First, the tort would not deter future conduct, but would instead penalize a party unaware of potential wrongdoing. Second, liability for such a tort would be based upon great speculation regarding the value of the evidence at issue. Lastly, it would create unnecessary litigation and place a substantial burden upon society as a whole because third parties not even aware of litigation would be required to adopt cumbersome retention policies to reduce exposure to liability.

To prevent spoliation of evidence by third parties, a plaintiff who anticipates litigation should instead enter into an agreement with the third party or obtain a court order to preserve the evidence. By doing so, the plaintiff preserves a potential breach of contract claim regarding the evidence or can seek remedies for violation of the court order in the event the evidence is lost or destroyed.

Under Reynolds, the plaintiff cannot assert a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence. However, the Court confirmed that discovery sanctions and criminal sanctions remain viable against “first parties” who intentionally destroy evidence, Further, third parties may still be liable if a plaintiff can demonstrate a breach of a contract to preserve the evidence.