Modern Problems: Paternity in a New Age

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the global economy. Louisiana was not spared, and many businesses had to close as sales to their customers slowed or stopped altogether. Not surprisingly, the question arose regarding whether business interruption insurance would provide coverage to businesses in this situation. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently was asked this question in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and found that the policy at issue did not provide such coverage.

The mayor of New Orleans issued a proclamation on March 16, 2020, that prohibited most public and private gatherings. This applied to restaurants, whose business initially was limited to takeout and delivery services. Before the pandemic, Oceana Grill, a restaurant located in the French Quarter, could serve up to 500 customers at one time. However, it had to limit its business to takeout and delivery services when the mayor’s proclamation was announced. Because of social distancing guidelines, it remained at 60% or less capacity throughout the pandemic.

Oceana maintained a commercial insurance policy with loss of business income coverage and filed suit to request a declaratory judgment that the “policy provides business income coverage from the contamination of the insured premises by COVID-19.” Oceana’s insurer argued that there was no coverage under the policy because COVID-19 did not cause “direct physical loss of or damage to property” under the policy’s terms.

The trial court denied Oceana’s request for declaratory relief at trial. The appellate court reversed and found the policy’s terms ambiguous because it held “direct physical loss” could mean loss of use of the property. Because the pandemic prevented the full use of the property due to capacity limitations, the appellate court found coverage was triggered.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the appellate court’s decision, finding its focus on the use of the property to be misguided. The Court found that suspension of operations “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property,” as defined by the policy, required “the insured’s property to sustain a physical, meaning tangible or corporeal, loss or damage.” The Court noted that the restaurant’s physical structure was not lost or damaged because of the pandemic. COVID-19 restrictions did not cause damage or loss that was physical in nature. Therefore, the policy did not provide coverage for loss of business income.

Whether a policy affords coverage depends on the terms and conditions of each policy and the facts of each case. However, in light of this decision, businesses with insurance policies that include provisions with language like that at issue in Cajun Conti should not anticipate coverage for loss of business income allegedly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case References:

Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 2022-01349 (La. 3/17/23), 2023 WL 2549132.

In Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined how Louisiana courts should review general damage awards. The Court noted its decision also was intended to clarify its prior ruling in in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., which addressed the same issue. To review our prior analysis of the Court’s holding in Pete, click here.

Traditionally, Louisiana has required a two-step analysis for appellate review of a lower court’s damage awards. First, the appellate court must determine whether the trier of fact “abused its discretion” in assessing damages. Courts generally found a damage award abused discretion if it “shocked the conscience,” a standard critics argued was too subjective. Second, and only if the award “shocked the conscience,” courts could consider prior awards to establish the highest or lowest reasonable award.

In Pete, the Court held that courts of appeal should compare verdicts to general damage awards in similar cases during the first step of analysis to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion. This approach suggested general damage awards should not be solely based on the subjective findings of the jury but should be grounded in objective comparisons to other cases. It was thought this also served the purpose of maintaining consistency and reasonableness of damage awards. The Pete decision was seen by many as an attempt to address Louisiana's trend of rising verdicts, which critics argued were contributing to higher insurance premiums in the state.

However, in Barber Bros., the Supreme Court revisited these issues, when it examined a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $10.75 million in general damages, $2.5 million to his wife for loss of consortium, and $1.5 million to each of their two children. The jury found the plaintiff sustained extensive physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury, which significantly impacted his personality, lifestyle, and self-image.

Citing Pete, the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the awards to $5 million for the plaintiff, $400,000 for his wife, and $100,000 for each child. However, upon rehearing, the Court reinstated the original general damages award. Citing Pete again, the court clarified how damage awards should be reviewed on appeal as follows: (1) courts should determine whether abuse of discretion occurred by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case, to include a “consideration of prior awards in similar cases,” and (2) if abuse of discretion is found, “the court is to then also consider those prior awards to determine ‘the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion.’”

The Court clarified that the consideration of prior awards should be balanced with an examination of the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts of Barber Bros., the Court held it did not adequately account for the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries upon initial hearing. While the jury award was “on the high end of the range of reasonable awards,” the court found it was not disproportionate to prior awards and “bore a reasonable relationship” to the evidence presented at trial. Thus, the award did not “shock the conscience” and should not have been adjusted following the initial hearing.

The Barber Bros. decision may be limited to the facts presented in that case. However, the ruling appears to suggest that prior verdicts are only a factor to be weighed against a case’s facts to assess whether a trial court abused its discretion with a general damage award that “shocks the conscience.” While the court did not overturn Pete, the Barber Bros. case appears to re-open the door for damage awards to be based upon more subjective assessments of the jury and not the more objective standards the Pete decision initially appeared to create. It remains to be seen how much weight prior decisions will carry when courts address these issues moving forward.

References:

Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, 23-788 (La. 12/19/24), 397 So. 3d 404.

Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So. 3d 636, reh'g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.

As a general rule of Louisiana law, a plaintiff cannot recover general damages for mental disturbance or distress unless the defendant’s act also causes physical injury, illness, or some other physical consequence. However, in Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently reexamined the circumstances under which a limited exception to this general rule may apply.

The Spencer case involved an explosion and fire that occurred shortly after midnight at the Valero refinery in Meraux, Louisiana. The plaintiffs claimed Valero should be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged they heard loud sounds, experienced anxiety, and had difficulty sleeping after the event. None of the plaintiffs received any medical treatment or experienced physical injury/symptoms. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs could not recover damages under these circumstances.

The court held that recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not precluded under Louisiana law. However, the court also cautioned that not every act that causes some harm also yields liability and compensatory damages. It held that Louisiana courts must also consider the goal set forth under Louisiana law to prevent “spurious” or false claims when examining these types of actions.

In review of the plaintiffs’ claims, the court cited Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, to show that the plaintiffs were required to establish “the especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.” The Spencer court held evidence of generalized fear or evidence of mere inconvenience is not enough to show that a plaintiff’s distress is “serious.” The court added that this rule must be “stringently applied,” because these types of cases, though fact intensive, are inherently speculative in nature.

In review of the facts presented in Spencer, the court found that Valero owed a duty to the plaintiffs and breached the “duty it owed, which was a cause-in-fact of plaintiffs’ generalized fear and anxiety.” However, the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show that their complaints, which included anxiety and difficulty sleeping, were sufficiently “serious” to support an award for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and their claims were dismissed. Although the result in Spencer may be limited to its facts, the Court’s decision appears to align with the general rule that a plaintiff usually cannot recover general damages for emotional distress in Louisiana absent an accompanying injury.

References:

Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, 2022-00469 (La. 1/27/23), 356 So. 3d 936.

Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d 1801 (La 1990).