Sydnee D. Menou

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.

The Louisiana Legislature recently enacted Act 3, which reflects an effort to address the handling of insurance claims in Louisiana – particularly for catastrophic losses – and define ambiguities in the law. This blog addresses changes to Louisiana’s “bad faith” statutes. Broadly, Act 3 amends and enacts new sections of La. R.S. 22:1892, repeals La. R.S. 22:1973, and enacts La. R.S. 1892.2 to address situations involving catastrophic losses.

Prior Louisiana Bad Faith Statutes – La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973

Previously, La. R.S. 22:1892(A) stated an insurer must:

• Issue payment to an insured within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss;
• Pay the amount of a bona fide third-party’s property damage or reasonable medical expenses within 30 days of a written settlement agreement;
• Initiate loss adjustment within 14 days of notice of a non-catastrophic loss or within 30 days of receipt of notice of a catastrophic loss;
• Make a written offer to settle property damage within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.

If an insurer did not follow the requirements of La. R.S. 22:1892(A), the insurer could be required to pay the insured the amount owed under the policy plus a penalty if the insured established that the insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause.” Courts defined this standard as “vexatious” and without justification. The penalty is calculated as either 50% of the amount owed under the policy or 50% of the difference between the amount owed and a partial tender made by the insurer, if any. Additionally, if the insured established entitlement to the penalty, the insured could also recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the insurer.

Former La. R.S. 22:1973 codified an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. It set an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and make reasonable efforts to settle claims with the insured, a claimant or both. This general duty of good faith and fair dealing applies only to insureds.^ The statute also outlined six prohibits acts that, if knowingly performed, constituted a violation of the statute. Five of these six prohibited acts applied to both insureds and third-party claimants.^*

If an insured proved a knowing violation of La. R.S. 22:1973, the insurer could be required to pay the amount owed under the policy, damages caused by the insurer’s violation of the statute and a penalty of up to 200% of the damages that the insured or claimant incurred as a result of the breach. Such damages were separate and distinct from the amounts owed under the policy but could extend to anything for which the insured could establish a causal link.˚̃

Revisions to La. R.S. 22:1892

The new revisions enact several important changes. While the text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.

1. Time Delays

Under amended and re-enacted La. R.S. 22:1892(A), insurers must generally adhere to the time delays and conduct outlined under the previous law. Under La. R.S. 22:1892.2, for catastrophic events at residential properties, an insurer’s payment is owed within 60 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss. For catastrophic losses at non-residential properties, the statute provides an insurer’s payment is owed within 90 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.

Another exception exists when an insurer initiates loss adjustment before the 14-day or 30-day deadline. If this occurs, the insurer’s obligation to issue a written offer to settle is extended by the number of days the insurer initiates loss adjustment before the deadline.

2. Reciprocal Duty of Good Faith

Under the new law, La. R.S. 22:1973 is repealed and the general duty of “good faith and fair dealing” owed by an insurer to its insured and the prohibited insurer conduct previously outlined in La. R.S. 22:1973 is now encompassed within §1892.

The new statute also provides that the insured, the claimant or the representative of the insured/claimant owes the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If an insured fails to comply with affirmative duties under the policy, misrepresents pertinent facts and coverages, submits an estimate that lacks a basis in the evidence or the policy, then the insured’s conduct may be considered in determining whether the insurer’s conduct warrants an award of penalties.

3. Cure Period

For catastrophic losses, the new law states suits may only be brought if the insured first provides the insurer with “cure period notice.” This notice requires that the insured provide the insurer with written notice of the violation, a written formal demand and notice of the facts and circumstances of the dispute. After this notice, several options exist:

1. The insurer can pay the demand in full (along with the insured’s actual expenses and attorney fees no greater than 20%) within 60 days of the notice and extinguish any further cause of action.

• The insurer can issue partial payment on the claim within 60 days of the notice and reduce the penalty owed, if any, by half.

• The insurer can request additional information, but this does not extend the insurer’s other deadlines.

4. Revised Penalty Provisions

The amendments also modify the recoverable penalty. The statute specifies the calculation of the penalty based on the type of violation, the type of property and the type of loss event. Generally, the insured is no longer entitled to recover all damages sustained by a breach of the statute: now the claimant may only recover “proven economic damages.” Notably, the potential for a penalty of up to 200% of the damages sustained as a result of the breach no longer exists.

5. Timing

The law also formalizes and codifies the prescriptive period for claims brought under La. R.S. 22:1892 or La. R.S. 22:1892.2 to two years.

References:

^Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 1995-2895 (La. 5/20/97) 694 So.2d 184.

* Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., 780 Fed.Appx. 132 (5th Cir. 2019).

˚Durio v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2011-0084 (La. 10/24/11) 74 So.3d 1159.

̃ Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2009-0007 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10) 38 So.3d 963.

It seems intuitive that people have an obligation to avoid potentially harmful conditions that are open and obvious. Nevertheless, treatment of open and obvious conditions in Louisiana law has proved tricky because many cases did not apply a uniform analytical framework. In Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc. and the City of Pineville, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently offered needed guidance on the appropriate analysis for open and obvious conditions.

The plaintiff stopped at a gas station and decided to walk her dog in a nearby grassy area. To get to the grassy area, Farrell had to cross a pool of water that was “approximately the length of a tractor-trailer.” Farrell attempted to jump across the narrowest part of the pool, but slipped and fell. She sued for damages arising from her injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the condition was open and obvious. The trial court and court of appeal denied the defendants’ motion. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the matter and reversed.

In finding that the condition was open and obvious, the court began its analysis by outlining the elements that a plaintiff must establish to recover for damage arising from a defect under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315, 2316, 2317 and 2317.1:

• That the defendant owed plaintiff a duty to conform its conduct to a specific standard;
• That the defendant breached the duty owed;
• That the defendant’s conduct was the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries;
• That the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and,
• That the plaintiff suffered damages.

The court also highlighted the requirement under La. R.S. 2317.1 that plaintiff show the defendant knew or should have known of the condition before the injury occurred.

The court noted that some courts had assessed whether a condition was open and obvious in the context of whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, while other courts had assessed whether a condition was open and obvious in the context of whether the defendant had breached the duty that was owed. In Farrell, the court found a duty was owed under the code articles referenced above. It clarified that whether a condition was open and obvious should be considered during analysis of whether the duty was breached, pursuant to Louisiana’s “risk/utility” test. This test requires consideration of whether the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm, which considers whether the condition had any social utility; the likelihood and magnitude of harm the condition presented; the cost of preventing the harm; and the nature of the plaintiff’s conduct, including whether plaintiff’s conduct was socially useful or inherently dangerous.

Specifically, whether a condition is open and obvious should be considered in determining the likelihood of harm and magnitude of harm to an objectively reasonable person. The court further advised that the specific nature of the condition should be considered, such as its location and size. In contrast, a plaintiff’s particular and subjective knowledge of the condition is not relevant in determining whether defendant has breached a duty.

The Farrell court applied this analysis to the facts. It found that the pool served no useful purpose. No evidence existed regarding the cost to eliminate the risk. With respect to Farrell’s conduct, the court found that walking a dog was not dangerous by nature and may have an important social function, but this did not weigh heavily in the analysis. However, with respect to whether the condition as open and obvious, the court considered the location of the pool at the edge of the parking lot, the size of the pool, and the fact that it was apparent to all who encountered it. Thus, the condition was open and obvious, and the likelihood of and magnitude of the harm was minimal.

The court concluded that these factors collectively showed the condition was not unreasonably dangerous. The defendants did not breach their duty to plaintiff, and summary judgment should have issued for the defendants. In so holding, the Supreme Court provided clarifying guidance on analysis of open and obvious conditions under Louisiana law.

Case Reference:

Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc. and the City of Pineville, 2022-000849 (La. 3/17/23), --- So.3d ----, 2023 WL 2550503.