Blog
Explore news, articles, outcomes, and legal resources by category or practice area.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
deselect
No items found...
No items found.
Insight
Court Finds Signing of Waiver Form Does Not Extend Prescriptive Period
Until recently, tort claims in Louisiana were subject to a one-year prescriptive period.* In Carollo v. Tulane Univ., the plaintiff’s claim was subject to that one-year prescriptive period, but she filed her suit more than one year after she was injured. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as prescribed. In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that her execution of a waiver form prevented her from timely filing suit for her alleged injuries.
The plaintiff was a member of Tulane’s Swim and Dive Team. As a team member, she signed Tulane’s Concussion Education Form, which concluded with the following statement: “I understand that this release means that, among other things, I am giving up my right to sue the institution for any such losses, damages, injury, or costs that I may incur.” Plaintiff sustained a concussion during practice on January 9, 2021. In her Petition, she alleged she discovered the full extent of her injuries on August 5, 2021. However, she did not file suit until February 17, 2023, which was beyond the one-year prescription period.
When a claim is prescribed on the face of the petition, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove her claim is not prescribed. Carollo first argued (1) the Concussion Education Form was a contract, (2) her claim arose from that contract, and (3) personal claims under contracts should be subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3499. The court rejected this argument because the concussion form did not meet the requirements for a valid contract under Louisiana law.
The plaintiff then argued that the doctrine of contra non valentem should apply. This doctrine provides “prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which their cause of action is based and applies an exception to the statutory prescriptive period where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues.”
Contra non valentem can apply when there is some condition coupled with a contract that prevented the plaintiff from filing suit. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments asserting this theory. Even if Carollo could establish a contract with Tulane under the concussion form, she could not point to any physical, mental, or procedural condition that prevented her from investigating her tort claims and filing suit against it.
Contra non valentem can also apply when the defendant does some act effectually to prevent the plaintiff from availing herself from her cause of action. The plaintiff argued that she was forced to sign the concussion form as a member of the Swim and Dive Team and that the form prevented her from filing suit within the prescriptive period. The court also rejected this argument, holding the plaintiff “knew about her concussion related injuries but did not perform her due diligence within the prescriptive period to determine whether she could file suit.”
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s execution of a waiver form stating she agreed not to sue the defendant for injuries could not interrupt prescription for the plaintiff’s claim.
*La. C.C. art. 3493.1, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, now provides delictual actions/tort claims are subject to a liberative prescription of two years.
References:
Carollo v. Tulane Univ., 2024-0038 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/9/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 52557.
Civil Procedure
Contra Non Valentem
Prescription
News
Keogh Cox recognizes its attorneys selected to the 2025 Louisiana Super Lawyers list.
Keogh Cox is pleased to announce that five attorneys were named to the 2025 Louisiana Super Lawyers list:
- John P. Wolf, III listed in Civil Litigation
- Andrew Blanchfield listed in Professional Liability
- Kirk L. Landry listed in Workers’ Compensation
- Christopher K. Jones listed in Class Action
- Mary Anne Wolf listed in Construction Litigation
Four attorneys were selected to the 2025 Louisiana Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” list:
- Chelsea A. Payne listed in Construction Litigation
- George A. Wright listed in Civil Litigation: Defense
- Brandi A. Barze listed in Civil Litigation: Defense
- Cole C. Frazier listed in Personal Injury General: Defense
No items found.
Insight
Keogh Cox Secures Dismissal of Premises Liability Case
The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment Keogh Cox obtained in Clark v. Premier Automotive Management, LLC, finding the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence failed to establish an unreasonable risk of harm caused her to fall.
In Clark, the plaintiff claimed she was injured after slipped and fell in a puddle of water in a service garage. Keogh Cox attorneys Chad A. Sullivan and Cole C. Frazier filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants in response. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof to establish that standing water or a hazardous condition caused her fall. Specifically, the defendants maintained that the plaintiff could not establish (1) an unreasonable risk of harm existed within the garage or (2) the puddle of water existed on the garage floor for an extended period of time.
The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that it rained earlier in the day, that she was walking quickly before she fell, and that she was wearing flip flops. The plaintiff also testified she assumed she fell in a puddle of water because her back was damp after her fall. She described the amount of water under her shoes as the size of a “softball.”
The defendants also attached the affidavits of two employees who worked at the service garage on the day of the incident. The affidavits acknowledged wet conditions on the day of the incident but denied any prior complaints or accidents in the area. The affidavits also established that the plaintiff fell in an uncovered area of the garage that slopes downward. Thus, there was no possibility for standing water or puddles to collect.
Based upon this evidence, the appellate court found that the defendants satisfied their burden of proof to show there was no unreasonable risk of harm. The court stated the burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish that there was an unreasonable risk of harm and thus establishing a genuine issue of material fact. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden because all her arguments were based upon conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. To support her claims, the plaintiff could only cite to the “possibility” of the existence of standing water or puddles. As such, the plaintiff only speculated whether a hazardous substance or an unreasonable risk of harm caused her fall. Such speculation was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
In so holding, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that Keogh Cox obtained through summary judgment.
References:
Clark v. Premier Auto. Mgmt., LLC, 2024-0397 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 451473.
Slip and Fall
Summary Judgment
No items found.
Insight
Louisiana Supreme Court Revisits How General Damage Awards Are Reviewed on Appeal
In Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined how Louisiana courts should review general damage awards. The Court noted its decision also was intended to clarify its prior ruling in in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., which addressed the same issue. To review our prior analysis of the Court’s holding in Pete, click here.
Traditionally, Louisiana has required a two-step analysis for appellate review of a lower court’s damage awards. First, the appellate court must determine whether the trier of fact “abused its discretion” in assessing damages. Courts generally found a damage award abused discretion if it “shocked the conscience,” a standard critics argued was too subjective. Second, and only if the award “shocked the conscience,” courts could consider prior awards to establish the highest or lowest reasonable award.
In Pete, the Court held that courts of appeal should compare verdicts to general damage awards in similar cases during the first step of analysis to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion. This approach suggested general damage awards should not be solely based on the subjective findings of the jury but should be grounded in objective comparisons to other cases. It was thought this also served the purpose of maintaining consistency and reasonableness of damage awards. The Pete decision was seen by many as an attempt to address Louisiana's trend of rising verdicts, which critics argued were contributing to higher insurance premiums in the state.
However, in Barber Bros., the Supreme Court revisited these issues, when it examined a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $10.75 million in general damages, $2.5 million to his wife for loss of consortium, and $1.5 million to each of their two children. The jury found the plaintiff sustained extensive physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury, which significantly impacted his personality, lifestyle, and self-image.
Citing Pete, the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the awards to $5 million for the plaintiff, $400,000 for his wife, and $100,000 for each child. However, upon rehearing, the Court reinstated the original general damages award. Citing Pete again, the court clarified how damage awards should be reviewed on appeal as follows: (1) courts should determine whether abuse of discretion occurred by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case, to include a “consideration of prior awards in similar cases,” and (2) if abuse of discretion is found, “the court is to then also consider those prior awards to determine ‘the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion.’”
The Court clarified that the consideration of prior awards should be balanced with an examination of the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts of Barber Bros., the Court held it did not adequately account for the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries upon initial hearing. While the jury award was “on the high end of the range of reasonable awards,” the court found it was not disproportionate to prior awards and “bore a reasonable relationship” to the evidence presented at trial. Thus, the award did not “shock the conscience” and should not have been adjusted following the initial hearing.
The Barber Bros. decision may be limited to the facts presented in that case. However, the ruling appears to suggest that prior verdicts are only a factor to be weighed against a case’s facts to assess whether a trial court abused its discretion with a general damage award that “shocks the conscience.” While the court did not overturn Pete, the Barber Bros. case appears to re-open the door for damage awards to be based upon more subjective assessments of the jury and not the more objective standards the Pete decision initially appeared to create. It remains to be seen how much weight prior decisions will carry when courts address these issues moving forward.
References:
Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, 23-788 (La. 12/19/24), 397 So. 3d 404.
Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So. 3d 636, reh'g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.
Louisiana Supreme Court
Verdict
Insight
UM Claim in Amended Petition Prescribed When Original Petition Did Not Give Sufficient Notice of Claim
In Madden v. Fairburn, the plaintiff amended her petition to assert a UM claim against an insurer based upon the alleged negligence of a new defendant not named in the original petition. The amended petition asserted a new theory of liability but sought the same recovery under the same UM policy.
The issue presented to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit was whether the original petition interrupted prescription for the claim brought against the UM insurer. Because the insurer did not receive notice in the original petition that it could be liable for damages based upon the new defendant’s fault, the court found prescription could not be interrupted.
Madden was a passenger in a vehicle driven by John Seibert that collided with Steven Ray Fairburn. Madden timely filed suit against Fairburn and Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation (Capitol Specialty), claiming uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under its policy. The Trial Court later dismissed Madden’s claims against Fairburn. While the appeal of that ruling was pending, and over five years after the accident, Madden amended her petition to allege Seibert was at fault and sought the same UM coverage any damages he caused. Capitol Specialty argued the claim brought against it in the amended petition had prescribed.
At the time of the accident, claims for torts/delictual actions had a one-year prescriptive period that commenced from the date of the injury or damage sustained* Claims to recover damages under a UM policy are subject to a prescription period of two years.^ Madden argued her original claim against Capitol Specialty interrupted prescription because her amended claim arose from the same accident and sought to recover damages under the same UM policy.
La. C.C. art. 3462 states that prescription is interrupted when an obligee (Madden) commences an action against an obligor (Capitol Specialty) in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue. However, in Kling v. Hebert, the Louisiana Supreme Court has clarified that the “essence of interruption of prescription by suit is notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved.” The Kling judges emphasized that prescription serves to protect defendants from unexpected liability years after an event, particularly when a new legal theory or a different alleged tortfeasor is introduced.
The court also considered Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which held that a claim against an insurer based on one party’s negligence does not interrupt prescription for a later claim against the same insurer based on another party’s negligence. Because Madden’s original suit was based on Fairburn’s negligence, Capitol Specialty did not receive timely notice that she would later seek UM coverage based on Seibert’s alleged fault. Thus, the appellate court ruled in favor of the insurer, affirming the prescription of the plaintiff’s claims.
References:
Madden v. Fairburn, 2024-0513 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/24), --- So.3d ---, 2024 WL 5232995.
Kling v. Hebert, 23- 00257, p. 4 (La. 1/ 26/24), 378 So. 3d 54.
Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 314 So. 2d 350 (La. 1975).
*La. C.C. art. 3492. See As of July 1, 2024, delictual actions are subject to a two-year liberative prescriptive period, applying to delictual actions that arose or after the effective date.
^ La. R.S. 9:5629.
Appellate Court
Civil Procedure
Prescription
UM Coverage
Insight
Keogh Cox Obtains Appellate Victory in Denial of Class Certification
Keogh Cox attorneys Andrew Blanchfield, Chris Jones, and Chelsea Payne successfully defeated class certification in an action students brought to recover a partial refund of tuition and fees they claim they were owed after in-person classes were converted to remote learning because of the COVID-19 global pandemic. See Miazza v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
In 2021, plaintiffs Taylor Gunter and Michael Miazza filed a lawsuit seeking a partial refund of the tuition they paid to LSU for Spring 2020 classes. They alleged that they were entitled to a partial refund of tuition and certain fees because in-person classes were cancelled in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In lieu of in-person classes, remote learning went into effect after spring break, from March 30, 2020 through the end of the spring semester.
In addition to their own claims for partial refunds, the plaintiffs tried to bring the case as a class action and moved to certify a class defined as: “All students who, as of March 13, 2020, were enrolled at Louisiana State University's main campus in Baton Rouge who paid Tuition and/or Fees for the Spring 2020 semester, or on whose behalf such payment was made.”
After the completion of discovery for class certification, and after the dismissal of Plaintiff Michael Miazza’s claim, Plaintiff Taylor Gunter filed a Motion for Class Certification. After hearing, the Trial Court certified the class as alleged, finding all the requirements for class certification set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 591 were satisfied. LSU appealed the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The First Circuit reversed the Trial Court’s judgment and found the Plaintiff failed to satisfy all of the requirements for class certification. After conducting a rigorous analysis of the class certification requirements, the Court concluded that “a multitude of individualized inquiries and proof make up the liability and damages issues essential to the putative plaintiffs’ implied contract claims.” The Court identified some of these “individualized inquiries” as follows:
• which representations in each school’s or college’s catalogs, bulletins, and website materials did the putative plaintiff rely upon in developing his or her expectation and what particular facilities and on-campus opportunities did a putative plaintiff expect to utilize;
• whether the putative plaintiff has historically utilized on-campus facilities and opportunities; which facilities and/or on-campus opportunities, if any, were necessary for a particular school's or college's course completion;
• whether a putative plaintiff was satisfied with the online instruction, course credits received, and grading options provided; and
• whether a putative plaintiff actually suffered any financial loss, mindful of each student’s particular situation.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support findings of offers and acceptances, where were necessary (1) to establish meetings of the mind and (2) conclude each putative plaintiff and LSU consented to an implied contract. Any determination of liability for an implied contract also is dependent upon proof of facts individual to each putative class member. Therefore, the class would degenerate into a series of individual trials.
The First Circuit concluded that certification of the case as a class action was an abuse of discretion. It reversed the Trial Court’s judgment and decertified the matter. Plaintiff filed a Writ Application with the Louisiana Supreme Court. On January 14, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s Writ Application, finally resolving the class certification issue. As a result, Plaintiff cannot pursue class certification, but rather may only pursue her own individual claim.
References:
Miazza v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2023-1194 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/9/24), 394 So.3d 874, writ denied, 2025 WL 87255 (La. 1/14/25).
Civil Procedure
Class Actions
Class Certification
No items found.
No items found.
Insight
To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate: LA Supreme Court Rejects Federal Court Position
Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused substantial damage in Louisiana, resulting in extensive litigation that continues to develop. In a July 8, 2024 blog post, we reported that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bufkin Enterprises, LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., affirmed that equitable estoppel applied to allow domestic insurers to compel arbitration under the New York Convention even where the insured dismissed the foreign insurers with prejudice. Click here to read more.
New case law from the LA Supreme Court warrants supplementation of our prior blog post. The Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish (“Calcasieu”) filed suit in federal court to recover alleged underpaid and untimely insurance claim payments. Various domestic insurers moved to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration clauses found in two foreign insurers’ policies. The foreign policies required all claims be submitted to arbitration in New York under New York law. The insurers relied upon Bufkin Enterprises, LLC v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., and Calcasieu moved to certify questions to the LA Supreme Court.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of LA certified questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court to address this issue. In Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court held:
- Arbitration is prohibited by statute. The case involved the interpretation of La. R.S. 22:868, as amended in 2020. Generally, La. R.S. 22:868(A) prohibits the use of arbitration clauses in insurance policies. The Court held this prohibition is rooted in public policy because compulsory arbitration clauses deprive courts of jurisdiction over actions against insurers. The Court noted it historically has held arbitration clauses within insurance policies are unenforceable, and it did not deviate from its historical position.
- As a matter of first impression, an insurance policy with a political subdivision is a “public contract” within meaning of the statute banning any provision in public contracts which requires a suit or arbitration proceeding to be brought in a forum or jurisdiction outside of the state. It was undisputed that Calcasieu is a political subdivision of this state. Also, it was undisputed the Defendants contracted with Calcasieu to provide insurance coverage for approximately 300 properties that Calcasieu owned for the benefit of the public. No private actors involved. Thus, the Court found, “The Defendants’ insurance policies clearly covered public properties owned by Calcasieu, purchased with public funds––taxpayer dollars. As such, we easily find insurance contracts with political subdivisions, like the policies at issue, are public contracts within the meaning of La. R.S. 9:2778.” Thus, the statute precludes arbitration or venue outside of LA, or the application of foreign law, in claims involving the State and its political subdivisions.
- A domestic insurer may not use equitable estoppel to enforce arbitration via a foreign insurer's policy. Citing its disagreement with the Federal Court’s ruling in Bufkin Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Ins., the Court held “[E]quitable estoppel is not available under these circumstances because it conflicts with the positive law of La. R.S. 22:868, which prohibits the use of arbitration clauses in Louisiana-issued insurance policies. As such, domestic insurers may not employ this common law doctrine to compel arbitration through the clause of another insurer's policies, as it clearly contravenes La. R.S. 22:868(A)(2). A contrary finding would (1) violate Louisiana's positive law prohibiting arbitration in Louisiana-issued insurance policies; and (2) invite domestic insurers’ misuse a doctrine of ‘last resort’ to ceaselessly rely on insurance policies of foreign insurers to compel arbitration.”
References:
Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 2024 WL 4579035 (La.), 9, 2024-00449 (La. 10/25/24).
Bufkin Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. 96 F.4th 726 (5th Cir. 2024).
Arbitration
Equitable Estoppel
Hurricane
Insurance
Insight
Louisiana Supreme Court Rules on Bond an Insurer Must Post for Suspensive Appeal
A Louisiana litigant has a right to appeal a judgment rendered against it at trial and has two options to appeal the judgment. The litigant can take a suspensive appeal, which suspends the execution of the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal, or it can take a devolutive appeal, which does not. La. C.C.P. art. 2124 provides that when the judgment if for a sum of money, a party seeking a suspensive appeal must post security, or a bond, “equal to the amount of the judgment,” including interest.
What happens when a monetary judgment is cast against an insurer (and its insureds) and the amount of the judgment exceeds the limits of the insurer’s policy? Can the insurer be required to post bond in excess of its policy limits to suspensively appeal the judgment? The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed this issue and ruled an insurer is required to post a security bond covering only its policy limits.
In Martinez v. Am. Transp. Grp. Risk Retention Grp., Inc., a jury cast judgment against a transportation group, its driver, and its insurer for damages the plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The trial court rendered a judgment in the amount of $2,802,054.66, which was in excess of the $1,000,000 limits of the insurer’s policy. The insurer moved for a suspensive appeal and requested a reduced bond because its insured was no longer in existence and could not post a bond. Nevertheless, the trial court set the appeal bond at $2,802,054.66, plus interest. The insurer posted a bond in the amount of its policy limits plus interest and costs and sought appellate review of the trial court’s appeal bond order.
The Supreme Court observed that the contracts clauses of the federal and state constitutions prohibit the enactment of any law “impairing the obligation of contracts.” Therefore, the Court found that to require an insurer to post a bond for suspensive appeal in excess of its policy limits would render meaningless, and therefore impair, the terms of the insurance contract setting the policy’s limits. Thus, the Martinez court should have set security to allow the insurer to suspensively appeal the portion of the judgment up to its policy limit.
However, the Court refused to reduce the suspensive appeal bond for all the defendants cast in judgment. Instead, the Court ruled the insurer could suspensively appeal the judgment up to the amount of its policy limits, stay execution of that portion of the judgment, and devolutively appeal the remainder of the case for its insureds.
References:
Martinez v. Am. Transp. Grp. Risk Retention Grp., Inc., 2023-01716 (La. 10/25/24) 2024 WL 4579047.
Civil Procedure
Insurance
Louisiana Supreme Court