Louisiana Supreme Court Provides Guidance on “Going and Coming” Rule

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that a claim for defense and indemnity may be asserted before a judicial finding of liability. The Court’s decision overruled prior decisions that held claims for defense and indemnity were premature until it was determined that damages were actually owed and the party claiming indemnity sustained a loss.

In Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, the plaintiff alleged he was injured when he drove over a downed power line that belonged to Cox Communications. Evidence showed Cox Communications contracted with Cable Man to provide services, maintenance, and repair for its telecommunication companies. The contract covered maintenance and repair of the subject phone line.

The contract included an indemnification provision that required Cable Man to indemnify and defend Cox Communications from any and all claims relating to Cable Man’s work, Pursuant to the contract, Cox Communications sent Cable Man a request to tender defense and indemnification under the contract. Cable Man refused the tender and Cox Communications filed a cross-claim against Cable Man asserting that it was owed defense and indemnification. In response, Cable Man filed an Exception of Prematurity and maintained that the claim for indemnity had not accrued because there had not been a judgment or a finding a Cable Man’s fault or liability.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Exception of Prematurity and stated that “It is well-established that claims for indemnity, as well as claims for defense arising under an indemnity agreement, are premature prior to a determination that damages are actually owed and the indemnitee sustains a loss.” The court reasoned that the lawsuit was still pending against both parties and no liability determination had been made. Therefore, under the “well-established” law, Cable Man owed no obligation to Cox Communications for indemnity and costs at the time Cox asserted its cross-claim.

However, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s decision and Cable Man’s claims of prematurity were denied. Acknowledging such claims for indemnification previously were considered premature, the Court held the law moving forward should allow for a claim for indemnity, whether in a third-party demand or a cross-claim, that is raised during the course of litigation and before a finding of liability. Further, the Court recognized potential inconsistencies with prior judicial determinations and stated, “in light of our ruling today, to the extent any prior jurisprudence can be interpreted otherwise, we now clarify that such a claim for indemnity is not prohibited before a liability adjudication.”

This ruling makes clear that “asserting a claim for indemnity, arising out of the same facts and circumstances, is not premature before a judicial finding of liability.” The right to collect on an indemnity agreement continues to be determined upon a finding of liability or loss, but a claim for indemnity can now be asserted in the same proceeding.

References:

Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, et al, 2023-CC-01358 (La. 5/10/24); 386 So.3d 270.

Can a child have more than one father? Yes, according to Louisiana law which allows for "dual paternity."

Louisiana's "family law" has undergone many changes in an attempt to react to the challenges presented by new medical technology and a breakdown of the traditional family structure. The recent Supreme Court decision in Derek Alan Pociask v. Kera Mosely is the latest effort to address these "modern problems."

The Pociask Court explained that there is a public interest in "protect[ing] innocent children, born during marriage, against scandalous attacks upon their paternity by the husband of the mother, who may be seeking to avoid paternal obligations to the child ... Thus, the traditional and historical position of Louisiana jurisprudence was to zealously guard and enforce the presumption of paternity created by the Civil Code." This public policy was easier to promote in the past when a husband may have had no reason to question or ability to challenge his paternity. However, in a world of vasectomies and DNA testing, the husband now has an increased ability to factually prove that he is not the father.

With "dual paternity," the first "father" is the husband of the child's mother. The second "father" is the biological father of the child. This situation can occur because the husband is presumed to be the father of the child under Louisiana law. See, La. C.C. art. 185. This "presumption" becomes incontrovertible if the husband does not bring an action to disavow his paternity within one year from when he learns or should have learned of the child's birth unless the husband lived separate and apart continuously from the mother for three-hundred days immediately preceding the birth of the child. See, La. C.C. art. 189.　

If the husband lived separate and apart for three-hundred days immediately preceding the birth of the child, the husband can bring a disavowal action within one year from being notified in writing that a party in interest asserts that he is the father of the child. If he fails to bring the disavowal action, he will be considered the "father" for all legal purposes. The purpose behind the "separate and apart" exception is to bring legal and biological paternity into "closer association." See, Katherine Shaw Spaht, Who's Your Momma, Who are Your Daddies?: Louisiana's New Law of Filiation, 67 La. L. Rev. 307 at 314 (2007).

In Pociask, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed what it means to "live separate and apart continuously" from the mother. The plaintiff in Pociask (the presumed father and ex-husband of the defendant mother) brought an action to disavowal his paternity. The disavowal action was brought well over a year after the child's birth.

Factually, the presumed father in Pociask underwent a vasectomy prior to the birth of the child, had not entered into sexual relations with the mother for over three-hundred days (over nine months) prior to the child's birth and had barely seen the mother in the three-hundred days prior to the birth of the child. Moreover, DNA testing proved that he was not the biological father. Nevertheless, the Louisiana Court of Appeals determined that the husband was the presumed father of the child because he did not bring his disavowal action within a year of the child's birth.

The Court of Appeals interpreted the phrase "lived separate and apart continuously" so strictly that the husband's one night stay at the marital domicile during the three-hundred day period preempted the disavowal action. The Appeals Court held that the phrase "lived separate and apart continuously" should not be interpreted in pari materia (in a like manner) with the divorce articles of the Civil Code. In the divorce setting, a spouse will be found to have lived "separate and apart" when the overall circumstances show that there was no mutual intention to resume the marital relationship.

The Pociask Court disagreed with the strict reading of the "separate and apart" language used by the appellate court. According to the Pociask Court, the phrase "lived separate and apart continuously" should be interpreted the same way in a disavowal action as it interpreted with a divorce. Therefore, the overnight visit in Pociask did not serve to interrupt the three-hundred day period and the disavowal action was timely.

In cases that involve physical injury, defendants often request an “Additional Medical Opinion [AMO]” from a physician of their choice as part of the defense of the case. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1464 allows a defendant to select a physician to perform a physical and/or mental examination of a plaintiff to challenge the plaintiff’s claimed physical and mental injuries. At times, a plaintiff may voluntarily agree to the examination. However, if an objection is lodged to the requested examination, a defendant must proceed with a Motion to Compel the Additional Medical Opinion. In the context of the motion, the defendant must establish the following for the AMO to be ordered pursuant to article 1464:

1. The mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy; and
2. “Good cause” exists for the AMO.

Because Louisiana courts routinely hold that a plaintiff puts his or her physical and mental condition in “controversy” by filing suit and requesting damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, the focus of a motion for an AMO is often on the “good cause” requirement. “Good cause” is not defined in La. CCP article 1464, and its meaning is not clear. Recently, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided guidance on the issue in the case of Hicks v USAA General Indemnity Company, et al., holding that a showing of “good cause” requires that a moving party establish a reasonable nexus between the requested examination and the condition in controversy.

In Hicks, the defendant moved for an AMO with an orthopedic surgeon after plaintiff filed suit, alleging personal injuries to his neck, back, and arm as a result of an accident. In the context of the Motion to Compel, it was argued the plaintiff put his physical condition in controversy by alleging injury. The defendant noted plaintiff treated with two physicians, one of whom did not believe plaintiff was a surgical candidate. The defendant also maintained “good cause” existed because a plaintiff “who asserts mental or physical injury… places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury.” In support of this argument, the defendant also highlighted inconsistent medical testimony concerning plaintiff’s physical conditions and treatment in support of “good cause.”

In opposing the motion, the plaintiff argued “good cause” was absent because two physicians already had offered opinions on plaintiff’s condition and treatment.

The trial court denied defendant’s Motion to Compel AMO on grounds that “good cause” did not exist. The trial court noted that two physicians already had been deposed and that a physician selected by the defendant could review plaintiff’s medical records and the depositions of the other doctors to offer an additional medical opinion at trial. The case proceeded to trial, where the defendant introduced testimony from a physician who relied upon the materials referenced in the court’s ruling to support his medical opinion. Not surprisingly, the plaintiff argued the opinion of the defendant-selected physician should be discredited because he never examined plaintiff.

After a trial judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appealed. The appeal court also concluded “good cause” did not exist for the AMO, noting the absence of “definitive guidelines as to what constitutes good cause.” The appeal court also noted the fact that defendant had the ability to obtain the desired information by other means was relevant in deciding whether good cause was shown.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions. It started its analysis by noting the basic premise of our system of justice: that both sides to a dispute stand on equal footing in gathering evidence and preparing for trial. It noted the AMO allowed under La. CCP article 1464 actually limits the extensive discovery permitted under Louisiana law, as it balances considerations of “sanctity of the body and the right to privacy with considerations of fairness in the judicial quest for truth.” Article 1464 seeks to achieve balance by requiring more than “relevance” for an AMO, granting the right to courts to order an AMO only when a plaintiff’s condition is “in controversy” and “good cause” supports allowing the examination. The Supreme Court also noted that an AMO may be one party’s only opportunity to independently ascertain the existence and extent of the other party’s claimed injuries.

After balancing these competing interests, the Louisiana Supreme Court found “good cause” under article 1464 requires the moving party to establish a reasonable nexus between the requested examination and the condition in controversy. The decision as to whether the moving party has demonstrated both the “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. At times, the pleadings alone may contain sufficient information to establish a reasonable nexus.

As part of its decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that although meeting the statute’s requirements may entitle a defendant to an examination, a defendant is not entitled to any AMO it request; reasonable limitations may still be applied. It remains the trial court’s role to balance the competing interests and rights of the parties, considering both “sanctity of the body” and the implication of one party’s privacy rights against considerations of fairness for the moving party.

After employing its analysis, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded the defendant in Hicks demonstrated “good cause” because plaintiff alleged severe injuries as a result of the accident, claimed damages, and inconsistent medical testimony concerning plaintiff’s physical condition existed. It remanded the case for a new trial.