Louisiana Changes Prescriptive Periods for Survival and Wrongful Death Actions

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled a plaintiff’s bad faith insurance claim was prescribed where the policy at issue required actions to be brought within two years after the date of loss.

In Phyllis Wilson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the plaintiff asserted a bad faith claim against an insurer. The applicable policy of insurance provided “[n]o action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started within two years after the date of loss.” The plaintiff alleged that the insurer failed to timely tender payments for losses that occurred on August 27, 2020 and October 20, 2020. However, the plaintiff did not file her suit unit January 9, 2023.

Prior to the Wilson decision, courts frequently relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., which held that actions against insurers under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes are subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. In Smith, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a bad faith action against an insurer was a delictual or tort action subject to a one-year prescriptive period, or a contractual action, which is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under Louisiana law. The Smith court concluded that the duty of good faith owed by the insurer to the insured “emanates from the contract between the parties” such that the “insured’s cause of action is personal and subject to a ten-year prescriptive period.”

In Wilson, the Louisiana Supreme Court examined whether Smith required the Court to uphold a ten-year prescriptive period for bad faith actions even though the insurance policy at issue prohibited actions brought more than two years after the date of loss. The Wilson court ultimately concluded that an action against an insurer brought more than two years after the date of loss is prescribed where the applicable insurance policy set a term of two years for filing a claim against the insurer.

To reach this conclusion, the Wilson court cited Taranto v. Louisiana citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., which held “in the absence a statutory prohibition, a clause in an insurance policy fixing a reasonable time to institute suit is valid.” The Wilson court then turned to the applicable statute and noted that La. R.S. 22:868(B) “expressly provides that no policy ‘shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement limiting right of action against the insurer to a period of less than twenty-four months next after the inception of the loss when the claim is a first-party claim…’” The Wilson court noted the two-year limitation in the applicable policy was consistent with La. R.S. 22:868(B).

The court’s ruling supports the argument that policy provisions requiring actions to be filed within two years of the date of loss are enforceable. However, the Court did not disturb its holding in Smith, noting the Smith case was factually distinguishable because it did not involve a policy that contained a contractual limitation on the insured’s institution of suits.

References:

Phyllis Wilson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 2023-CC-01320 (La. 1/10/2024) (per curiam), 2024 WL 108714.

Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., 2019-00052 (La. 10/22/19), 285 So.3d 1062.

Taranto v. Louisiana citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2010-0105 (La. 3/15/11), 62 So.3d 721, 728.

Thousands of people are currently dealing with the devastating flooding in Baton Rouge and surrounding areas. Here are a few pieces of information that may assist you as you begin to recover from this event:

1. Do your best to document your property damage claim as best you can. Take as many pictures of the damage as possible, whether of your house, commercial building, personal contents or inventory. These photos will be your proof of damage for whatever damage claim you are able to make, whether through your insurance company or otherwise.
2. Similarly, try and compile whatever pictures you can of your house or business, and its contents, from before the flood. To the extent, there is a dispute of whether a specific item was damaged or not, or even existed in the home or building before the flood, these pictures will be invaluable.
3. As soon as possible, attempt to itemize all of the contents in your home. A handwritten list is fine. Go through each room and attempt to list out every one of your possessions. Try and identify the make or model of each item, what you paid for it, and how old it is. Some insurance companies will require this specific information before you will be paid for each item. Of course, it is unlikely that you will have purchase documents for each item in your possession. Although this type of documentation is not required to prove your claim, it is obviously helpful for the insurance company to process it.
4. Keep records of what you spend to live elsewhere, including food and toiletries. If you rent a hotel room or are required to rent a house, make sure to keep records of what you pay.
5. Likewise, keep good records of any expenses you incur to repair your home or business. An organized and well-documented insurance or property damage claim is always better received and more quickly processed than one that is not.
6. With respect to insurance claims, and to the extent the policy provides coverage for your specific loss, an insurance company has an obligation, by law, to pay all undisputed amounts to you within a certain period of time. In other words, your insurance company has to at least pay you for everything that is undisputed. If there is a legitimate dispute over something, the insurance company can withhold payment for those items but must pay you for the items for which there is no disagreement. If the insurance company does withhold payment without a legitimate reason or fails to pay you within a certain amount of time, it may be responsible for certain statutory penalties and costs. You will need to discuss this with an attorney if you feel your insurance company is not treating you fairly.
7. To this point, because the insurance company must pay all undisputed amounts if there remain any disputed items, do not sign anything until the claim is fully resolved. You are not required to sign anything to receive any undisputed money under your policy.
8. If you have flood insurance, depending on the policy language, you may be eligible to receive immediate, emergency payments. Ask your insurance company what your policy provides, but do not assume what you are told is correct. Ask for a copy of your policy and read it for yourself.
9. To date, President Obama has made available federal disaster aid to residents of the parishes of East Baton Rouge, Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Helena. If you do not have flood insurance, you should immediately register with FEMA. You can also call FEMA at 800-621-3362. More information about the available federal assistance, including those for some businesses, can be found here.
10. The Louisiana State Bar Association and the Baton Rouge Bar Association will be providing free legal services to assist anyone with any legal issues arising from this disaster. For now, you can call the LSBA at 504-566-1600 or 800-421-5722 or the BRBA at 225-344-4803. More information will be disseminated as efforts are further coordinated.

Hopefully, this information will provide you with a little bit of information about the property damage claim process.

Generally, Louisiana Workers’ Compensation laws provide coverage for an employee who sustains personal injuries by an accident arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. La. R.S. 23:1021(1) defines “accident” as:

"An unexpected or unforeseen actual, identifiable, precipitous event happening suddenly or violently, with or without human fault, and directly producing at the time objective findings of an injury which is more than simply a gradual deterioration or progressive degeneration."

In Rayborn, Sr. v. Continental Cement Company, LLC et al, the plaintiff-employee filed suit when the worker’s compensation carrier terminated benefits based on its assertion that the plaintiff’s left knee injury was not the result of an “accident” as defined in the statute. The evidence presented at trial established the following:

• After returning home from work one day, the plaintiff began to feel soreness behind his left knee and believed he “may have pulled a muscle.”
• The plaintiff sought medical attention at a local clinic 2 days later.
• The plaintiff told clinic staff that his “leg was hurting,” and that he “was at work climbing up and jumping down off of barges all week.”
• After returning from a pre-planned family trip one week later, the plaintiff told to his managers at work that he hurt his knee “some kind of way” and that he was “doing too much climbing up and jumping down from barges “and his knee “just started hurting.”
• The chart from follow-up clinic visits stated, “Patient had [an] injury while at work when he jumped from a height and later that day felt a discomfort in the left lateral knee.”
• Additional records noted the plaintiff “injured his knee on the job; however it was not readily apparent until [his] knee became stiff later that evening.”
• The plaintiff later consulted with an orthopedic surgeon whose initial chart entry stated, “Over the course of the week, his knee began bothering him in the patellofemoral area and it started to become tight and swollen.”

At the conclusion of trial, the workers’ compensation court ruled that the plaintiff successfully proved that he sustained a work-related injury of his left knee on a particular date by climbing and jumping while performing his work duties. On appeal, the workers’ compensation carrier argued that plaintiff’s assertion that he was injured “some kind of way” over the course of a week was not sufficient to meet the requirement of a specific, identifiable accident in the course and scope of employment under La. R.S. 23:1021(1).

In affirming the decision of the OWC judge, the appellate court highlighted numerous opinions from the Louisiana Supreme Court and other courts of appeal wherein the statutory definition of “accident” was liberally construed to reject an interpretation that excluded “those workers who are worn down, rather than immediately crippled by, their work.” The opinion notes that it is well-settled in the case law that an “accident” exists when “heavy lifting or other strenuous efforts, although usual and customary, cause or contribute to a physical breakdown or accelerate its occurrence because of a pre-existing condition.”

The opinion added, “It is presumed the legislature is aware of how Louisiana courts have interpreted the statute; yet, it has taken no steps to overrule more than thirty years of Louisiana jurisprudence.” In so holding, it is unclear whether the court considered La. R.S. 23:1020.1(D), in which the Legislature specifically rejected the jurisprudential doctrine requiring a liberal interpretation of Workers Compensation statutes in favor of an employee. Despite this statement from the Legislature on the construction of Workers Compensation statutes, the Rayborn opinion suggests that courts may continue to base their decisions on the liberal interpretation of “accident” that has been developed and adopted by Louisiana courts when analyzing what types of injuries are covered under Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law.

References:

Rayborn v. Cont'l Cement Co., LLC, 2023-0403 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/10/24), 2024 WL 132802.