Outdoor Living:  Federal Court Rules That Uneven Terrain in Parking Lot Does Not Present an Unreasonable Risk of Harm

On December 9, 1982, a victim was raped and stabbed multiple times in her Baton Rouge residence. In those harrowing moments, the victim was face-to-face with her assailant and vowed that she would remember the characteristics of her assailant in the unlikely event she survived. A friend arrived at the residence and entered the second-floor room containing the assailant and the wounded victim. Fortunately, at that moment, noise from a postal employee caused the assailant to flee the scene. The investigation began that same day.

Sometime later, Archie Williams became a suspect and was then criminally charged after the victim identified Mr. Williams as her attacker. The victim identified a prominent scar on the assailant which, in an unfortunate twist of fate, tended to match a scar on Mr. Williams. Several of the governmental officers involved in the investigation and the April 1983 criminal trial of Mr. Williams were sued many years later in the case styled Archie Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, ET AL. Keogh Cox attorneys Drew Blanchfield, Collin LeBlanc, Cathy Giering, and Chelsea Payne represented a forensic scientist, a lab technician, and a print examiner in the suit (the “Forensic Defendants.”) In his June 10, 2024 ruling, Judge Brian A. Jackson granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of these defendants, dismissing the claims against them with prejudice.

At the 1983 criminal trial, Forensic Defendants testified that they could not identify Mr. Williams as the attacker. Similarly, both the prosecutor and defense counsel advised the jury that the physical evidence did not implicate Mr. Williams. Nevertheless, Mr. Williams was convicted based upon the passionate but mistaken testimony of the victim. Mr. Williams had not committed these crimes but remained incarcerated until his release decades later.

Mr. Williams consistently denied guilt. In 2008, he hoped DNA testing would help to prove his innocence. However, the DNA evidence was of no assistance. In 1999, The FBI launched its National Fingerprint Database (“IAFIS.”) Yet, a 2009 search generated no matches to fingerprints from the crime scene that had not already been identified. In 2014, Next Generation Identification (NGI) replaced IAFIS. By 2016, NGI held approximately 72,000,000 criminal fingerprints and 50,000,000 civil fingerprints. A 2019 search of this ever-expanding database matched fingerprint evidence taken from the 1983 crime scene to the prints of a convicted rapist who had died in prison years before. Mr. Williams was innocent and was soon released through a joint filing by the State of Louisiana and Mr. Williams. His lawsuit against multiple defendants followed.

In response, the Forensic Defendants filed a Motion that advanced the “qualified immunity” granted to governmental officials. In opposition to the Motion, the plaintiff possessed the burden: 1) to raise a fact dispute on whether his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants’ individual conduct; and 2) to show those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. The Court found that the plaintiff did not meet this burden. Although Plaintiff alleged that certain fingerprint evidence had been “suppressed” in violation of the “Brady Rule,” the Court cited the robust factual record showing that the jury was fully aware that no fingerprint evidence identified Mr. Williams and that unidentified prints were present at the crime scene. The Court also rejected the claim that there was any fabricated exculpatory blood or serology evidence.

The facts in Williams highlight the great technological improvements since the early 1980s which now aid the court system, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to protect against the conviction of an innocent suspect. These facts also tell a sad human story of an individual who spent more than 30 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. While it does not replace the lost years, Louisiana has created a fund which provides some financial resources to wrongfully convicted individuals to help them re-enter society. Williams was able to take advantage of this fund.

References:

Archie Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, ET AL, United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:20-cv-00162.

The Louisiana Legislature recently enacted Act 3, which reflects an effort to address the handling of insurance claims in Louisiana – particularly for catastrophic losses – and define ambiguities in the law. This blog addresses changes to Louisiana’s “bad faith” statutes. Broadly, Act 3 amends and enacts new sections of La. R.S. 22:1892, repeals La. R.S. 22:1973, and enacts La. R.S. 1892.2 to address situations involving catastrophic losses.

Prior Louisiana Bad Faith Statutes – La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973

Previously, La. R.S. 22:1892(A) stated an insurer must:

• Issue payment to an insured within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss;
• Pay the amount of a bona fide third-party’s property damage or reasonable medical expenses within 30 days of a written settlement agreement;
• Initiate loss adjustment within 14 days of notice of a non-catastrophic loss or within 30 days of receipt of notice of a catastrophic loss;
• Make a written offer to settle property damage within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.

If an insurer did not follow the requirements of La. R.S. 22:1892(A), the insurer could be required to pay the insured the amount owed under the policy plus a penalty if the insured established that the insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause.” Courts defined this standard as “vexatious” and without justification. The penalty is calculated as either 50% of the amount owed under the policy or 50% of the difference between the amount owed and a partial tender made by the insurer, if any. Additionally, if the insured established entitlement to the penalty, the insured could also recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the insurer.

Former La. R.S. 22:1973 codified an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. It set an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and make reasonable efforts to settle claims with the insured, a claimant or both. This general duty of good faith and fair dealing applies only to insureds.^ The statute also outlined six prohibits acts that, if knowingly performed, constituted a violation of the statute. Five of these six prohibited acts applied to both insureds and third-party claimants.^*

If an insured proved a knowing violation of La. R.S. 22:1973, the insurer could be required to pay the amount owed under the policy, damages caused by the insurer’s violation of the statute and a penalty of up to 200% of the damages that the insured or claimant incurred as a result of the breach. Such damages were separate and distinct from the amounts owed under the policy but could extend to anything for which the insured could establish a causal link.˚̃

Revisions to La. R.S. 22:1892

The new revisions enact several important changes. While the text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.

1. Time Delays

Under amended and re-enacted La. R.S. 22:1892(A), insurers must generally adhere to the time delays and conduct outlined under the previous law. Under La. R.S. 22:1892.2, for catastrophic events at residential properties, an insurer’s payment is owed within 60 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss. For catastrophic losses at non-residential properties, the statute provides an insurer’s payment is owed within 90 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.

Another exception exists when an insurer initiates loss adjustment before the 14-day or 30-day deadline. If this occurs, the insurer’s obligation to issue a written offer to settle is extended by the number of days the insurer initiates loss adjustment before the deadline.

2. Reciprocal Duty of Good Faith

Under the new law, La. R.S. 22:1973 is repealed and the general duty of “good faith and fair dealing” owed by an insurer to its insured and the prohibited insurer conduct previously outlined in La. R.S. 22:1973 is now encompassed within §1892.

The new statute also provides that the insured, the claimant or the representative of the insured/claimant owes the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If an insured fails to comply with affirmative duties under the policy, misrepresents pertinent facts and coverages, submits an estimate that lacks a basis in the evidence or the policy, then the insured’s conduct may be considered in determining whether the insurer’s conduct warrants an award of penalties.

3. Cure Period

For catastrophic losses, the new law states suits may only be brought if the insured first provides the insurer with “cure period notice.” This notice requires that the insured provide the insurer with written notice of the violation, a written formal demand and notice of the facts and circumstances of the dispute. After this notice, several options exist:

1. The insurer can pay the demand in full (along with the insured’s actual expenses and attorney fees no greater than 20%) within 60 days of the notice and extinguish any further cause of action.

• The insurer can issue partial payment on the claim within 60 days of the notice and reduce the penalty owed, if any, by half.

• The insurer can request additional information, but this does not extend the insurer’s other deadlines.

4. Revised Penalty Provisions

The amendments also modify the recoverable penalty. The statute specifies the calculation of the penalty based on the type of violation, the type of property and the type of loss event. Generally, the insured is no longer entitled to recover all damages sustained by a breach of the statute: now the claimant may only recover “proven economic damages.” Notably, the potential for a penalty of up to 200% of the damages sustained as a result of the breach no longer exists.

5. Timing

The law also formalizes and codifies the prescriptive period for claims brought under La. R.S. 22:1892 or La. R.S. 22:1892.2 to two years.

References:

^Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 1995-2895 (La. 5/20/97) 694 So.2d 184.

* Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., 780 Fed.Appx. 132 (5th Cir. 2019).

˚Durio v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2011-0084 (La. 10/24/11) 74 So.3d 1159.

̃ Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2009-0007 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10) 38 So.3d 963.

The recent decision in Gibson v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC, 20-0033 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/27/20), 2020 WL 507804 re-affirms that a workers’ compensation claim based on an unwitnessed accident is subject to pretrial dismissal where there is no corroborating evidence.

In Gibson, the plaintiff, a department manager for Walmart, claimed injury while picking up boxes. Although no one witnessed the incident, the plaintiff claimed that two managers working nearby were made aware of the accident and injuries almost immediately.

Walmart denied the claim in response to numerous “red flags.” For example, the two managers identified by the claimant denied any knowledge. Also, the first reference in a medical record to the alleged June accident came in mid-October.

Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff did not satisfy her evidentiary burden. In response, Gibson countered that the conflict between her testimony, the co-workers’ testimony, and the medical records created genuine issues of material fact to be decided at trial. The OWC trial court granted summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed.

In affirming the dismissal, the Fourth Circuit Court determined that Gibson’s testimony, standing alone, did not create a genuine issue of material fact. The general rule regarding unwitnessed accidents in worker’s compensation cases is well defined. Under this rule, an employee may prove by his or her testimony alone that an unwitnessed accident occurred only if the employee can establish that: (1) no other evidence discredits or casts serious doubt upon the worker's version of the incident; and (2) the worker's testimony is corroborated by the circumstances following the alleged incident. Ardoin v. Firestone Polymers, L.L.C., 10-0245 (La. 1/19/11), 56 So. 3d 215, 218.

Because evidence such as the delay in medical treatment raised doubt and Gibson lacked other corroboration, the dismissal of her claim was upheld. Gibson reminds that questionable unwitnessed accident claims without corroborating evidence can and should be dismissed via pretrial motion, notwithstanding the “relaxed rules of evidence and procedure” in workers’ compensation courts.

Ed Stauss is a partner with Keogh Cox. His practice relates mainly to workers compensation defense and the subrogation recovery. Ed is an avid and long time fan of the professional and major college sports teams in the area. He also enjoys running year-round, from 2 milers & 5Ks in the spring and summer to half marathons and full marathons in the fall and winter.