The Louisiana Legislature Overhauls the “Direct Action” Statute

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Louisiana legislature enacted and modified several statutes to limit the liability of individuals, businesses, and government agencies for exposure claims. However, the immunity is not absolute. While the immunity applies to “ordinary” negligence claims, it does not apply where acts are grossly negligent, wanton, or involve reckless misconduct. Further, as a condition to the protection afforded, the entity must show substantial compliance with the applicable COVID-19 procedures established by government authorities.

La. R.S. 9:2800.25, entitled “Limitation of liability for COVID-19” (the general immunity statute) provides that no person, business, or government entity shall be liable for injury or death resulting from exposure to COVID-19 through the performance of its business operations unless the entity failed to substantially comply with at least one set of procedures established by the federal, state, or local agency that governs the business operations, or the injury was caused by gross negligence or wanton, reckless misconduct. With respect to employer immunity, the statute provides that, regardless of whether an employee’s COVID-19 illness is covered under workers’ compensation law, the employee shall have no tort-based remedy against his employer unless the exposure was caused by an intentional act.

The exception to immunity in the general immunity statute calls into question the type of conduct that would rise to a level of gross negligence. Gross negligence is defined in Louisiana case law as “willful, wanton, reckless conduct that falls between intent to do wrong and ordinary negligence,” “lack of even slight care and diligence,” and “utter, complete or extreme lack of care.” While the definition does not provide a bright line rule, it reflects that the conduct must move well beyond simple negligence to defeat immunity.

For a business seeking to manage the risks arising from COVID-19, some best practices emerge: (1) monitor the COVID-19 procedures of government authorities to keep informed of the latest recommended or mandated procedures, (2) institute compliance protocols, (3) document and administer those procedures to show compliance, and (4) most obviously, avoid actions or omissions that may be construed as grossly negligent, wanton, or reckless.

Mary Anne Wolf is an engineer/attorney with a construction background who represents design professionals, contractors and others in construction litigation. She also gives seminars on the subject. She enjoys travel, yoga and encouraging her husband in his gardening and cooking endeavors.

Winning or losing in court often comes down to who possesses the burden of proof. Like a driver at a four-way stop, a litigant has to know when it is their turn.

Civil Procedure Article 966, the "Summary Judgment Article," provides that the mover bears the burden of proof. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed this burden in Dan Veuleman & Jody Veuleman v. Mustang Homes, LLC, 2013-C-190 (La. 4/5/13), - So. 3d - in the context of insurance coverage.

The general rule in Louisiana is that an insurer bears the burden of proving that a loss falls within a policy exclusion. In Veuleman, the insurer argued that the loss was excluded through a "work product" exclusion. However, the "work product" exclusion contained a "subcontractor" exception. The plaintiffs argued that the work was performed by a subcontractor and should for that reason be covered under the policy.

At the hearing, the insurer introduced its policy as evidence of the exclusion. However, it offered no evidence to show who performed the work at issue. The plaintiffs attempted to introduce an affidavit to establish that the work was performed by a subcontractor. The court of appeal rejected the affidavit as insufficient and concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish that their claims were spared from the work product exclusion.

The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed. It stressed that the insurer, not the plaintiff, possessed the burden of proving that the policy exclusion applied. The Court stated that "[t]he insurer offered no proof to accomplish its burden." Id. at 1.　

The Veuleman Court held that the appellate court "erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the motion for summary judgment" to the plaintiffs and that the insurer had the burden to show that "the exception [to the exclusion] is not met." In keeping, the Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The Veuleman decision reminds that a litigant should be aware when it is their turn to go.

Picture it – you purchase a new home in a quiet, family-friendly neighborhood. On your first night, you notice that the neighbors are having a party – a big loud party. Your haven of peace and tranquility is interrupted by thumping bass and the shrieks of people jumping into a pool. The next day, the neighbors are gone, and the block is quiet again. However, the party returns the next weekend, bigger and louder than before. You do some research and find the house is listed on a popular website for short term rentals. What do you do?

This is the exact question that was posed to the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Marina Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Cahill. In that case, the Marina Homeowner’s Association filed a petition seeking declaratory judgment against the owner of the house on the basis that the use of the home as a short-term rental violated the covenants of the homeowner’s association. In response, the property owners argued that the covenants had expired and were no longer applicable. Therefore, they claimed they were free to use their property as they saw fit.

Many homeowners in Louisiana are familiar with building restrictions. Authority for the issuance of building restrictions is found in Louisiana Civil Code article 775. A building restriction is a real right under Louisiana Civil Code article 777. However, Louisiana Civil Code article 778 provides that if there is doubt as to the existence, validity, or extent of building restrictions, the issue should be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of the immovable. These articles also provide a subsequent purchaser of the immovable property is also bound by the building restrictions if they are recorded in the public records.

The building restrictions for the subdivision at issue provided that the restrictions had a term of twenty years and then would renew automatically in ten-year periods. These restrictions bound the original property owners and all subsequent property owners. The court found that even though the original twenty-year term for the building restrictions had expired, the restrictions would automatically renew unless amended by the Association. Therefore, the property owner’s house was subject to the building restrictions.

Importantly for this case, the building restrictions specifically prohibited the use of the property for any reasons other than residential purposes. Therefore, the operation of a short-term rental was a violation of the building restrictions.

The Homeowners Association prevailed in this case – the property owners were no longer able to use their property for short term rentals. As the moral of the story – to be a good neighbor – it helps to follow the rules. And it is always important to check the fine print to know what those rules are!

References:

Marina Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cahill, 56,423 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/27/25), 420 So. 3d 782.