Michael J. Sullivan

• Shane Salathe Versus The Parish of Jefferson Through the Department of Sewerage

  Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2020-10-21

  In this personal injury case arising from a 2014 worksite accident, Shane Salathe was injured while working for Fleming Construction on a sewer project for the Parish of Jefferson. After Salathe’s death, his parents substituted as plaintiffs, and Amerisure Insurance Company intervened to recover workers’ compensation benefits it had paid, claiming reimbursement from the Parish, its insurer AAIC, and the Salathes. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Amerisure’s intervention with prejudice, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The core reasoning was that the construction contract required Fleming to obtain workers’ compensation coverage containing a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Parish, and Amerisure’s policy included exactly such an endorsement, barring its recovery claims.

  labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,666 words)

• Shane Salathe Versus The Parish of Jefferson Through the Department of Sewerage

  Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2020-07-15

  The case involved a workplace injury lawsuit by Shane Salathe, an employee of contractor Fleming Construction, who was severely injured while working on a Jefferson Parish sewer lift station project. Salathe sued the Parish for negligence in maintaining the hatch door that caused his fall, and the Parish and its insurer (AAIC) sought coverage under insurance policies that Fleming had obtained from Amerisure and Alterra, as required by the construction contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to Amerisure and Alterra, ruling their policies void to the extent they provided indemnity or coverage for damages arising from the Parish’s own negligence, and also addressed related policy-ranking issues. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, holding that the policies did not extend coverage for the Parish’s negligence consistent with the contract’s terms and applicable law, while dismissing the consolidated writ on policy ranking.

  labor & employmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,534 words)

• Alecia Richard Versus Kyle Bourgeois, Sr.

  Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2020-03-18

  In this Louisiana case, Alecia Richard petitioned for a temporary restraining order and injunction against Kyle Bourgeois Sr., the father of her nephew, alleging threats, harassment, and unwanted contact during child custody exchanges at a police station. The trial court held a hearing where both parties appeared and, after testimony and evidence, issued a permanent injunction in the form of a Uniform Abuse Prevention Order on June 12, 2019. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal vacated that judgment and remanded the matter. The court reasoned that a permanent injunction cannot be granted in a summary proceeding on a preliminary injunction hearing unless the parties expressly agree to submit the case for final decision, and it also noted an inconsistency between the trial judge’s oral ruling (declining to issue the standard order) and the written judgment that followed.

  family lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (2,322 words)

• Eric Brown Versus State of Louisiana

  Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2020-01-15

  Eric Brown was convicted in 1996 by a non-unanimous 10-2 jury of second-degree murder and armed robbery for crimes committed in 1994 when he was sixteen years old, receiving concurrent life and thirty-year sentences. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miller and Montgomery decisions, the trial court held a resentencing hearing that made Brown parole-eligible on the murder count but left the armed-robbery sentence unchanged; Brown appealed that revised sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed both the finality of the convictions and the sentences, holding that issues concerning the original convictions are not properly raised in this resentencing appeal because they were or could have been litigated in Brown’s first appeal, which became final in 1997. The court further noted that any favorable ruling in the pending Ramos v. Louisiana case would not automatically entitle Brown to retrial on direct review and declined to address retroactivity questions.

  criminal lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (6,803 words)

• Dunwoodie McDuffie, Jr. and Cheryl McDuffie Versus State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, Jacob A. Mullins, Heidi King and Lieren Gros

  Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2020-01-13

  In the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal case Dunwoodie McDuffie, Jr. and Cheryl McDuffie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, Jacob A. Mullins, Heidi King, and Lieren Gros (No. 19-CA-344), the McDuffies challenged an earlier ruling in their lawsuit against an insurer and individuals, which arose from an automobile accident. On January 13, 2020, a three-judge panel reviewed the plaintiffs' application for rehearing of the appellate decision. The court denied rehearing without further explanation, as reflected in the standard order signed by Judges Wicker, Chaisson, and Molaison. This ended the appellate proceedings at that stage.

  torts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (235 words)

• Carl J. Calamia, Jr. Cathy Calamia Giancoatieri and Karen Calamia, Individually and as the Children of Carl J. Calamia, Sr. and Theresa Calamia Versus The Parish of Jefferson, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Doing Business as Louisiana Utilities Supply Company, a Ferguson Subsidiary, HSBC Holdings, Plc, and/or the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited as Successors-In-Interest to the Asbestos Fiber Shipper/ Commodities Trader/ Merchant Bank Antony Gibbs & Co., Encana Corporation as Parent

  Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2019-12-30

  The case involved claims by the children of Carl J. Calamia, Sr. against the Parish of Jefferson and other defendants for survivorship and wrongful death damages arising from his 2007 death from mesothelioma, which they alleged resulted from his exposure to asbestos pipes while working as a contractor in Jefferson Parish; the suit was filed in 2013, more than six years later. The Parish filed an exception of prescription, arguing that an earlier related lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs against it and joint tortfeasors in Orleans Parish in 2006 did not interrupt the prescriptive period because it was brought in an improper venue and lacked timely service. The trial court granted the exception and dismissed the claims with prejudice, relying on the Orleans Parish pleadings and related documents. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that those Orleans Parish documents had not been formally admitted into evidence at the hearing, so the trial court could not properly rely on them to decide the prescription issue.

  proceduretorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,512 words)

Affiliations