Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements of Unjust Enrichment Claim

A case successfully handled by Keogh Cox on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Revenue serves a strong reminder of the importance of maintaining business tax records, and of the significant burden imposed on Taxpayers who do not.

In Barfield v. Diamond Construction, Inc., 51,291 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/5/17), 217 So.3d 1211, writ denied, 2017-0751 (La. 9/15/17), 2017 WL 4105839, the Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the Trial Court who granted summary judgment in favor of the Louisiana Department of Revenue in response to a Taxpayer’s failure to pay sales and use taxes over the span of several years.

Although the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment is usually imposed on the party who filed the motion, a Louisiana statute (La. R.S. 13:5034) shifts the burden in suits filed by the Department of Revenue to collect unpaid taxes. Therefore, to defeat the Department’s motion in Barfield, the Taxpayer possessed the burden to demonstrate that taxes were not owed on the various transactions at issue. Because the law presumes that sales and rentals of tangible personal property are fully taxable, the Taxpayer possessed the additional burden to show that the sales and rentals involved exempted categories. In the face of this “double burden,” the Taxpayer was unable to provide business records to demonstrate the nature of each transaction as these records were not preserved by the Taxpayer.

During the Department’s audit, the Taxpayer was unable to present the necessary records to prove it did not owe taxes on certain transactions. As a result, the Department was allowed to complete the audit by making an estimate of the amount of taxes owed for the subject transactions. The resulting audit findings were then treated as prima facie correct and were ultimately accepted because the Taxpayer offered no contrary evidence.

Noting the Taxpayer’s poor record-keeping, the Court cited the failure to produce the necessary records in support of its conclusion that the Taxpayer did not create a “material issue of fact” in opposition to the Department’s motion. This warranted the entry of judgment in favor of the Department and should remind every business of the real-world need to keep your tax records.

Written by: Chris Jones

Mary Anne Wolf will present Construction Insurance at the LSU and LSBA Construction Law CLE Program on September 20, 2024.

The Supreme Court ruling in Couvillion Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 2020 -00074 (La. 4/27/20) is a reminder that an indemnity claim must be sufficiently related to the principal demand and that contract indemnity provisions are to be strictly construed.

In Couvillion, the general contractor sued the owner of a public works port project for contract delay damages resulting from a cease work order issued to allow redesign of a fuel tank platform. When the contractor submitted its delay claim, the owner requested that its project engineer review it and make recommendations. The engineer recommended payment of a little over $1 million dollars. When the owner refused to pay, the contractor sued. In response, the owner filed a third-party demand against the engineer alleging that its recommendation was erroneous and excessive and that, if it was bound by the engineer’s recommendation, then the engineer must indemnify the owner.

On behalf of the engineer, Keogh Cox attorneys argued that the engineer should not be required to reimburse the owner for any delay costs and asked for dismissal through an exception of no cause of action. Code of Procedure Article 1111 provides that a defendant in a principal action may bring in any person who may be liable to him for all or part of the principal demand. Here, that was not the situation. The engineer was not liable to the owner for any part of the contractor’s delay claim because the engineer did not cause the delay. The delay damages were incurred before the engineer made a recommendation for payment. The events giving rise to the two claims were separate and distinct: the main demand arose from the project delay and the third- party demand arose from the engineer’s recommendation of the claim amount. The Court commented that the principal claim against the owner for delay damages was too attenuated from the owner’s claim against the engineer, thus the third-party demand was improper.

The owner also relied on the indemnity provision in the engineer’s contract that required the engineer to indemnify the owner against any and all claims for personal injury or “damages to property” that may arise from its services. The Court held that the plain meaning of the term did not include the economic-only losses related to the subject delay claim. The Court further reasoned that indemnity agreements are to be strictly construed, rejecting the owner’s broader interpretation.