What Happens Outside of Vegas?

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that the New Home Warranty Act ("NHWA") is not the exclusive remedy for a purchaser of a new home where the builder fails to disclose known defects in the Residential Property Disclosure Act ("RPDA"). Stutts v. Melton, 2013-0557, -- So.2d. ----. The Court also upheld an award of damages and attorney fees for fraud victims who elect not to seek rescission of a sales contract despite no Civil Code article expressly allowing for attorney fees in such instances.

Builder Chad Melton completed a home in Walker, Louisiana in 2004. He and his wife lived in the home for approximately nine months prior to selling the home to James and Lisa Stutts. The Residential Property Disclosure Act, La. R.S. 9:3196, et seq., requires disclosures of known problems with a home prior to sale. Melton provided the Stutts with a disclosure form, but failed to mention that color had previously been observed bleeding onto the walls of the home from the roof.

In Stutts, it was factually established that Melton was aware of the roof defect because he had entered into a $13,600 settlement with the roof manufacturer to fund the replacement of the roof. Nevertheless, Melton cleaned the walls and installed gutters instead of the more expensive roof replacement.

Melton's gutter solution was ill-advised and unsuccessful. After discovering the problem in the summer of 2006, the Stutts filed suit seeking as damages: the repair costs for the roof; costs for additional repairs; and attorney fees.

The Stutts filed a motion for summary judgment on their fraud claim citing La. C.C. art. 1953. The Meltons opposed the motion, arguing that the NHWA provides the "exclusive remedy" available to the Stutts. The motion was granted and, after a bench trial on damages, the trial judge awarded damages to include attorney fees.

The court of appeal reversed both the summary judgment and the money judgment, holding that the Stutts' claims were untimely under the NHWA.The NHWA provides a one year warranty period for new home construction and an additional thirty day period in which to file suit under the Act. By its terms, the NHWA provides the "exclusive remedies" between a builder and an owner relative to home construction.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and reinstated that lower court's judgment. The Court held that the RPDA applied in this case because the home had been occupied by the Meltons after construction was completed. Even though the NHWA claims were prescribed, the Stutts possessed a timely claim that Melton had provided a fraudulent disclosure in violation of the RPDA.

The Court next addressed the Stutts' claim for attorney fees. The Court observed that no statute specifically authorized attorney fees where the plaintiff does not seek rescission of the sale. However, the Court reasoned, citing principles of equity found in Louisiana Civil Code article 4, that the legislature surely did not intend for victims of fraud to go uncompensated if they elect not to seek full rescission of the sale. Accordingly, attorney fees were held appropriate where fraud is committed but the victim elects not to seek rescission of the contract.

The Court's holding in Stutts may have a limited impact on the NHWA because of the peculiar facts of the case, i.e. the builder of the new construction living in the completed home before selling it to plaintiffs. However, the Court's award of attorney fees is an interesting development in the law. Time will tell whether the Court may be inclined to create further exceptions to the established rule that attorney fees cannot be awarded in the absence of statutory or contractual language awarding attorney fees.

In a very important ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, a tort defendant is no longer liable for any “actual charges” by medical providers above the amount paid by a Workers Compensation insurer pursuant to promulgated Workers Compensation fee schedule . In Simmons v. Cornerstone Investments, LLC, 2018-cc-0735 (La. 5/18/19), the court concluded:

“…the amount of medical expenses charged above the amount actually incurred is not a collateral source and its exclusion from the purview of the jury was proper.” See http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2019/18-0735.CC.OPN.pdf

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the development of the collateral source rule under applicable jurisprudence noting that the genesis of the collateral source rule:

“Under the collateral source rule, a tortfeasor may not benefit, and an injured plaintiff’s tort recovery may not be reduced, because of monies received by the plaintiff from sources independent of the tortfeasor’s procuration or contribution. Under this well-established doctrine, the payments received from the independent source are not deducted from the award the aggrieved party would otherwise receive from the wrongdoer.” See Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 02-2349, p. 6 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d 734, 739.

Essentially, the court asks two questions when assessing whether the collateral source rule should apply. First, does the claimed benefit arise from some payment, wage deduction or other contribution by the Plaintiff that would diminish the plaintiff’s patrimony? Second, will the goal of tort deterrence be promoted by allowing the windfall? In a series of cases culminating in the case at bar, the court has been limiting the application of the collateral source rule in a number of contexts.

The court in Bozeman v. State, 03-1016 (La. 7/2/04), 879 So.2d 692, found that the collateral source rule did not apply when Medicaid was the payor such that the defendant could not be responsible for any amounts above what Medicaid paid to the provider. The court reasoned that it would be “unconscionable” to require taxpayers to pay the bills and then let a plaintiff recover the full undiscounted medical expenses and “pocket the windfall.” The court continued by noting in “Cutsinger v. Redfern, 08-2607 (La. 5/22/09), 12 So.3d 945, this court found the collateral source rule did not apply to prevent the plaintiff’s uninsured motorist carrier from receiving a credit for workers’ compensation benefits paid by her employer, even though the plaintiff paid for the UM coverage herself.” In Hoffman v. 21st Century North American Ins. Co., 14-2279 (La. 10/2/15), 209 So.3d 702, the court held that the collateral source rule does not apply to attorney-negotiated medical discounts. The court also looked at the US 5^th Circuit in Deperrodil v. Bozovic Marine, Inc., 842 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2016), that the collateral source rule does not apply above any amounts actually paid by the employer in the context of the LHWCA.

In each of the instances outlined, the court noted that the patrimony of the plaintiff was not impacted by limiting recovery to the amount of medical bills actually paid. Moreover, the court noted that the goal of tort deterrence is not negatively impacted, and that allowing a plaintiff to recover a windfall in this context is tantamount to an award of punitive damages that are not recoverable absent statutory authority which is not present in this context. The Simmons decision now extends that same logic to cases where a Workers Compensation insurer has paid the medical benefits pursuant to the Louisiana Workers Compensation Law.

This ruling will have significant impact on the evaluation, settlement and trial of tort cases that have corresponding Workers Compensation claims.

Submitted by John P. Wolff, III (Partner)

Imagine you are visiting family during the holidays. As a favor, you take a family member’s vehicle to the gas station for a fill-up. While in transit, you get into an accident where you are at fault. Does your insurance policy provide coverage for the accident?

According to La. R.S. 22:1296.1, a new statute that went into effect on August 1, 2022, the answer to this question is “yes,” your insurance may afford coverage under these facts.

La. R.S. 22:1296.1 now requires insurance policies issued in Louisiana to provide coverage when the driver insured under the policy operates a non-owned vehicle with the express or implied permission of the vehicle’s owner. The statue was enacted to declare a new public policy regarding this issue and was passed in response to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Landry v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, 2021-00621 (La. 1/28/22), reh'g denied, 2021-00621 (La. 3/25/22); 338 So.3d 1162.

The Landry case involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred as the defendant-driver, as a favor to the vehicle’s owner, drove the vehicle to a tire shop to repair a tire. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant-driver, the driver’s insurer, and the insurer of the vehicle that he drove at the time of the collision.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a provision in the driver’s policy that stated coverage under such circumstances was only available when the driver’s own vehicle was out of service. Because the driver’s vehicle was not out of service, no coverage was found under the driver’s policy. In so holding, the Landry court found that public policy did not require automobile insurance liability coverage for a driver’s negligent operation of a non-owned vehicle.

The Louisiana legislature enacted La. R.S. 22:1296.1 in response to the Landry decision. The statute provides that an insurer writing automobile liability, uninsured, underinsured, or medical payments coverage shall not exclude the benefits of such coverage under its policy to an insured operating a non-owned vehicle if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

• The coverage is in full force and effect.
• The insured is operating a vehicle owned by another with the express or implied permission of the vehicle’s owner.
• The non-owned vehicle that is being operated by the insured is not provided, furnished, or available to the insured on a regular basis.

The statute also provides this coverage is secondary to the vehicle owner's insurance policy. Furthermore, if the coverage provided under the statute is included within the coverage provided pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1296, which addresses coverage for temporary, substitute, and rental vehicles, the provisions of La. R.S. 22:1296 determine which coverage is primary. (For additional information regarding La. R.S. 22:1296 click here.) [Sophia, please include link to blog from 5/25/22].

Let’s return to real life scenarios like those we addressed above. Perhaps you are blocked in at a party, so a friend tosses you the keys to move their car, or, like the situation in Landry, maybe you are trying to do a good deed by driving your parents’ car to a gas station for a fill-up when an accident occurs. While it remains to be seen how courts will interpret this statute in these circumstances, under the new legislation, these actions may now implicate coverage under your insurance policy.

Case Reference: Landry v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, 2021-00621 (La. 1/28/22), reh'g denied, 2021-00621 (La. 3/25/22); 338 So.3d 1162.