The “Collateral Source Rule” & How it Can Cost (or Make) You Thousands – Part I

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.

Although courts have described the outcome as “harsh,” a recent ruling shows that a judgment creditor can recover the full amount of an employee’s unpaid debt from an employer if that employer fails to comply with specific garnishment procedures.

A party that prevails in a lawsuit and is awarded damages is known as a judgment creditor. In order to collect on the judgment, Louisiana law allows a judgment creditor to garnish the wages of the judgment debtor, the party cast in judgment. Once a judgment against an employee is obtained, the judgement creditor may issue garnishment interrogatories to the employer requesting information related to the employee’s job, rate of compensation, manner of payment, and whether there are other judgments or garnishments affecting the employee’s compensation.

It is imperative that the employer file sworn answers to all garnishment interrogatories within 30 days from the date of service.^ Louisiana courts treat unsworn answers to interrogatories as a failure to answer,* and an employer’s failure to timely answer garnishment interrogatories can result in costly penalties. In fact, a Louisiana employer can be held liable for the full amount of the employee’s judgment if procedural requirements are not followed.

La. C.C.P. art. 2413(A) states that if the employer fails to answer the garnishment interrogatories within 30 days from the date of service, then the judgment creditor may proceed against the employer for the amount of the unpaid judgment, with interest and costs. La. C.C.P. art. 2413(B) provides that the employer must pay the entire amount of the judgment unless it proves the actual amount it owed to the employee at the trial on the contradictory motion. Regardless of the decision on the contradictory motion, La C.C.P. art. 2413(C) requires the employer to pay the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees of the judgment creditor.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently examined these procedures in Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams.^^ The judgment creditor in the Tower Credit case issued garnishment interrogatories to the judgment debtor’s employer. However, the employer failed to timely respond to garnishment interrogatories. When the judgment creditor filed a Motion for Judgment Pro Confesso against the employer to require it to appear and present evidence regarding the amount of wages it should have withheld after receiving the garnishment interrogatories, the employer failed to appear for the hearing.

Given the employer’s failure to timely respond to the interrogatories and its failure to appear for the hearing, the First Circuit found that the creditor was entitled to a judgment pro confesso against the employer for the entire amount of the employee’s debt. Citing the unique facts of the case, which included evidence that the judgment debtor/employee no longer worked for the employer cast in judgment, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently granted vacated part of the judgment pro confesso and remanded the matter for rehearing.**

However, this case shows that Louisiana courts will enforce La. C.C.P. art. 2413 and cast an employer in judgment for its employee’s debt, even though courts have described the statute’s penalties as “harsh.” Tower Credit shows that employers should respond to garnishment interrogatories within the timeframe provided by law. In the event the deadline is passed, La. C.C.P. art. 2413(B) requires the employer to appear for the judgment pro confesso hearing if it intends to argue it should not be indebted for the judgment. Failure to do both could result in the employer being held liable for the full amount of its employee’s unpaid debt.

References:

^ See La. C.C.P. art. 2412(D).

*See All Star Floor Covering, Inc. v. Stitt, 804 So. 2d 705 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001).

^^Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022-0106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/16/22), 352 So. 3d 1029, writ granted, judgment vacated in part, 2022-01556 (La. 2/7/23), 354 So. 3d 659.

**Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022-01556 (La. 2/7/23), 354 So. 3d 659.

On August 28, 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a Writ Application in Leandro Carias v. Vernon A. Loren, et al. This denial signifies that the "sudden emergency" defense may be properly applied at the summary judgment level. The defense in the Carias litigation was handled by Keogh Cox attorneys Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc.

In Carias, the defendant operated his 18-wheeler traveling eastbound over the Mississippi River Bridge when, according to his testimony, a "phantom driver" abruptly entered into his lane of travel and forcefully applied their brakes. In the sliver of time allowed, the defendant sought to quickly determine if he could safely move from his lane of travel. Incorrectly, he believed that there was sufficient space in the lane to his right and impacted a truck in that lane. In turn, that vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff.

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and won based upon the sudden emergency defense, which provides that one is not negligent when they fail to take reasonable measures to avoid an accident when they were presented with: 1) a sudden emergency; 2) which was not of their making; and, 3) which did not allow sufficient time for deliberation. In opposition to the Motion, the plaintiff cited testimony that the defendant was "following too closely," and contended that the defendant was therefore at fault and unable to seek the protections of the defense. In response, it was argued that whether the defendant driver allowed sufficient space between his vehicle and the vehicle to the front was non-material when it was the actions of the phantom driver which exclusively created the sudden emergency.

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit. Prior to Carias, the Louisiana First Circuit had questioned whether the sudden emergency defense could ever be used at the dispositive motion stage. On this subject, the Louisiana First Circuit stated as follows in Manno v. Gutierrez, 05-0476 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/29/06); 934 So. 2d 112, 117-118: "while we cannot say that it would never be possible to apply the doctrine on a motion for summary judgment, our research has disclosed no cases from this court that have so applied it, and by the nature of the sudden emergency doctrine, it would seem rarely appropriate on a motion for summary judgment." Nevertheless, the First Circuit upheld the Carias summary judgment finding that, unlike earlier cases, there was no conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's lack of opportunity to assess the situation or take other evasive actions.

In the Writ Application to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff cited to a "split in the Circuits" concerning whether the sudden emergency defense may be used at the summary judgment stage.　 In response, it was argued that the decades of jurisprudence following the Louisiana Supreme Court’s establishment of the sudden emergency defense in Hickman v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co., 262 La. 102, 113-114, 262 So.2d 385, 389 (1972) demonstrate that the lower courts have not struggled with this doctrine and that nothing in Hickman nor the Summary Judgment Article prevent a consideration of the sudden emergency defense through motion practice.

As a practical matter, summary judgment may still be difficult to obtain in the context of the sudden emergency defense because of the highly factual context into which the defense is often sought for application. Nevertheless, after Carias, it appears likely that there is no legal prohibition to the use of the doctrine in support of a dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment

Written by:

Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc