Sudden Shifts - Burden Shifting under Louisiana Law

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.

A rear-end collision is a unique animal in the law. Plaintiff’s attorneys seek them out, and insurance companies fear them­­--sometimes for good reason. The "rear-end" accident is unique because proof of the mere fact that one vehicle strikes the rear of another creates a strong legal presumption of fault under La. R.S. 32:81. While this presumption is formidable, it may be overcome.

The rear-end presumption is premised upon the duty to not follow too closely and the law will assume that the following driver breached this duty when there is impact. However, the following driver can escape liability if he shows that his vehicle was under control, that he followed at a safe distance, and that the lead driver negligently created a hazard which could not have reasonably been avoided. For instance, if it is shown that the reckless or unpredictable driving of the lead motorist created a sudden emergency, the following driver will not be at fault. Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 35 So.3d 230 (La. 2010). Once established, the sudden emergency defense trumps the “rear-end presumption.”A "sudden emergency" is created when a driver is placed in a position of imminent peril that he or she did not create through their own conduct. Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Company, 262 So.2d 385 (La. 1972). When a driver can demonstrate the existence of a sudden emergency, they are not negligent for failing to do what a reasonable person might have done to avoid the accident had they been given enough time to assess and react to the situation.In Jewitt v. Alvarez, 179 So.3d 645 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/30/15), a following driver who rear-ended the vehicle of the lead driver was free from fault as a result of the sudden emergency defense where the facts revealed that the accident was solely caused by the slow speed of the lead driver (who almost came to a complete stop on the interstate) and the presence of surrounding traffic prevented the following vehicle from taking evasive action.In Carias v. Loren, 2015 WL 1019481 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/9/15), an eighteen-wheeler was traveling in the middle lane of the interstate when a "phantom driver" moved without warning from the left lane to the middle lane and slammed on its brakes in front of the eighteen-wheeler. In attempt to avoid the collision, the driver of the eighteen-wheeler swerved to his right and impacted a vehicle which then struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The driver of the eighteen-wheeler invoked the sudden emergency defense; the court agreed and found the defendant-driver free from fault.Rear-end collisions are hard to defend, but a defendant may want to gather a clear understanding of all of the facts before accepting liability. If these facts support the sudden emergency defense, the driver may "walk."

Witness For The Prosecution was a 1957 film about the testimony of a German-born wife whose husband was on trial for murdering a rich woman. Based upon an Agatha Christie novel, the film gave a quote which has been parroted by attorneys ever since.

Sir Wilfrid: And when you said that he had accidentally cut his wrist, again, you lied?　

Helm: Yes!

Sir Wilfrid: And now today you've told us a new story entirely! The question is, Frau Helm, were you lying then, [or] are you lying now?　

Whether in court, deposition or on the big screen, the impeachment of witness creates drama-the kind of drama opposing attorneys try to avoid.

In O'Dwyer v. Our Lady of the Lake, -- So. 3d ---, 2013 WL 2131763 (La. 5/17/13), the Louisiana Supreme Court was asked to decide whether audio recordings of a defense witness must be disclosed before the deposition of the witness. The O'Dwyer plaintiff was a nursing student who alleged that she had been targeted for termination from the nursing program through "harassment, bullying, stalking, and intimidation."

O'Dwyer's attorney sought to depose the nursing program director. The defendant sought production of audiotaped conversations between the program director and another student before the deposition was allowed, and successfully obtained a written order that the audiotapes be produced. The First Circuit denied the plaintiffs' writ, but writs were granted by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The O'Dwyer Court looked to prior jurisprudence. In Wolford v. JoEllen Smith Psychiatric Hospital, 96-2460 (La. 5/20/97), 693 So. 2d 1164), the Supreme Court held that a defendant was not required to produce surveillance of the plaintiff until after the plaintiff's deposition. The Court highlighted the "important function in the search for truth" served by surveillance. After all, the value of the surveillance could be minimized were a plaintiff able to view the evidence and tailor his or her testimony to match. Therefore, the evidence was viewed as potential impeachment evidence and could be withheld prior to deposition.

In Bell v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 06-1538 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So. 2d 654, the Court refused to extend Wolford to the production of video which captured the accident itself. Video of the accident upon which the plaintiff sued was direct evidence and not primarily impeachment evidence. Therefore, it had to be produced prior to the plaintiff's deposition.

In O'Dwyer, the Court concluded that the audiotapes were made for impeachment and therefore need not be produced until after the nursing director's deposition. Justice Weimer, in dissent, challenged the characterization of the audiotapes as exclusively impeachment evidence. He cited to the language of the writ application which described the tapes as "unique evidence that may be used for direct or impeachment evidence at trial."

O'Dwyer indicates that a court may look to the primary function of the evidence in deciding its discoverability. The fact that the audiotapes may serve as direct evidence did not require their production when their primary function was impeachment.