Supreme Court Emphasizes “Error-Correcting” as Proper Role of Appellate Courts

In the recent case of Riedel v. Fenasci,2018-0540 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/18), _______ So. 3d _______, 2018 WL 6818716,home buyers sued the sellers and the involved real estate agents after mold wasdiscovered shortly following the sale. This is a common fact pattern in humidSouth Louisiana. The buyers lost in the trial court when there was no evidencethat the sellers or the agents knew of the problem. The result was affirmed bythe First Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Riedels identified mold weeks afterthe closing and filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurer. But the claim wasdenied when the insurer’s inspection revealed long- term damage, rot, anddeterioration in a ceiling due to water damage. That finding prompted thesuit.

Against the sellers, the Riedels contendedthat they “had to have known” about the moisture and mold in the home prior tothe sale. Because the home was sold “as is,” they had to establish fraudto recover. However, the sellers had not lived in the home for years and hadreceived no complaints from tenants over this time. Under such facts, the claimof fraud was not supported.

The Riedels also sued both agents for negligent misrepresentation, and their own agent for breach of fiduciary duty. In assessing the claim against the agents, the Riedel Court agreed that real estate agents are liable for negligent misrepresentation when they fail to disclose hidden defects in the property which were known or should have been known to them. The Court also agreed that a purchaser’s real estate agent owes a fiduciary duty, the highest duty of care recognized by law. Nevertheless, when the plaintiffs’ own inspector found no visible evidence of mold prior to the sale and there was no indication that the agents possessed prior knowledge of the mold, the claim against the agents was also dismissed.

Marty Golden has been practicing law based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for over thirty years, concentrating in civil litigation primarily involving injuries, property damage, insurance coverage, and contract disputes. Much of his practice is defending and advising real estate agents in suits by property buyers and sellers, but Marty also defends other professionals, insurance companies, manufacturers, and business owners. Marty has a special interest in all things procedural, because they are the rules of the road for litigators and knowing them better than his opponent gives him a leg up in court.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed the impact of contractual "errors" in Cynthia Fry Perionnet and Elizabeth Fry Franklin v. Matador Resources Company, 2012-2292, 2012-2377, -- So. 3d --.

The Perionnet case involved a dispute over the intent of a contract to extend a mineral lease. The property owners believed that the lease was extended as to only 168.95 acres of nonproducing land. The defendant/lessors argued that the contract contemplated that the lease would extend to the entire 1850.34 acres to include producing wells. Plaintiffs/property owners argued that their unilateral error regarding the terms of the contract was ground for rescission. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant/lessors. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court granted writs.

The Perionnet Court began its opinion with an overview of basic tenets of contract law. The Louisiana Civil Code defines a contract as "an agreement by two or more parties whereby obligations are created, modified, or extinguished." La. C.C. art. 1906. Contracts are formed through offer and acceptance. La. C.C. art. 1927. Once formed, contracts have "the effect of law for the parties and may be dissolved only through the consent of the parties or on grounds provided by law." La. C.C. art. 1983. One such "ground" under Louisiana law is "error." La. C.C. art. 1948.

The Louisiana Civil Code recognizes two forms of error: mutual error (both parties are mistaken) or unilateral error (only one party is mistaken). However, for either error to cause the dissolution of a contract, the error (1) must effect the cause of the obligation and (2) the other party must have known that the matter impacted by the error was the reason for the contract. La. C.C. art. 1949. In a case of mutual error, the court can reform the contract. Either partial or full rescission is the only remedy available for unilateral error. La. CC. art. 1952.

A party challenging a contract for unilateral error must also prove that the error was excusable. "Louisiana jurisprudence is sprinkled with cases which deny relief to the parties who claim an agreement should be invalidated because of unilateral error which is caused, in large part, by the complaining party's inexcusable ignorance, neglect or want of care." Id. p. 25.

The Perionnet Court found that the plaintiffs' alleged mistake was inexcusable. The defendants demonstrated that: 1) plaintiffs could show no excuse for failing to read and understand the contract; 2) plaintiffs' agents who negotiated and reviewed the contract were self-proclaimed experts in oil and gas; and 3) the original lease was on the plaintiffs' agent's own forms. The Court found a "sea of flags" in the written agreement that should have notified the experienced plaintiffs that the agreement extended to the entire property. Therefore, the Court found that the mistake was easily detectable and could have been rectified by a minimal amount of care, i.e. "by simply reading the document and/or requesting simple changes to the written offer before acceptance." Id. at 30.

The Supreme Court's Perionnet decision serves as a healthy reminder of a basic concept - read your contracts. Although to err may be human, it can affect your bottom line.

In a recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Lacy v. Ibarra, et al, the Court provided further instruction and clarification on exceptions to the “going and coming” rule, which provides employers generally are not liable for acts or omissions of their employees as they travel to or from work.

The plaintiff in Lacy alleged that she and her daughter were injured after they were involved in a car accident with the defendant. The defendant was an employee of Exxon who recently relocated to Baton Rouge, Louisiana from Houston, Texas. The employee had not secured a permanent residence in Louisiana. His family remained in Houston. At the time of the accident, the defendant was driving to work in his personal vehicle.

Plaintiff claimed that Exxon should be liable under the “special mission” and/or the “interest in transportation” exceptions to the “going and coming” rule. The Louisiana Supreme Court rejected both exceptions.

The Court noted the “special mission” exception applies in circumstances where the employee’s travel is a special or unusual, employment-related task outside the scope of the defendant’s normal job duties. The Lacy Court found that the defendant “was simply going to work” at the time of the accident. Therefore, the “special mission” exception did not apply. The Court also explained the employee’s recent relocation was not the type of “unusual” circumstance usually needed for the exception to apply.

The Court also found that the “interest in transportation” exception did not apply. This exception applies when an employer specifically pays the employee for the travel that is being done at the time of the accident. This can occur when an employer pays an employee for actual mileage for transportation from one point to another and, from both the employee and employer’s perspective, the purpose of the transportation is primarily for the employee’s benefit. In Lacy, the employer provides its employee with general transportation and relocation expenses. However, those general payments did not transform an ordinary commute into an employment-related activity or establish that the employer became interested in the employee’s transportation to trigger the exception.

The Lacy decision further solidifies Louisiana law that an employee’s travel to or from work, without any special circumstances, is not within the course and scope of an employee’s employment for purposes of vicarious liability.

Reference:

Lacy v. Ibarra, et al, 2025-01599 (La. 4/21/26), --- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 1074083.