Exxon sued Foster Wheeler for over $50 million in damages from a 1993 fire at a Baton Rouge petrochemical facility, alleging the blaze was caused by a defective pipe elbow installed during the facility's 1962-1963 construction under a contract with Exxon's predecessor. Foster Wheeler raised an exception of peremption under LSA-R.S. 9:2772, which bars actions against builders of immovables more than ten years after the owner takes possession. The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed the claims, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the elbow qualified as a component part of the immovable facility under Louisiana Civil Code articles 465 and 466, so the peremptive period applied and had long expired since possession began in 1963.
This case involved a lawsuit by Michael Neuman against the parents of minor John Watts Mauffray and their insurer Allstate after a fire allegedly set by the minor destroyed Neuman's mother's home. The trial court granted summary judgment to Allstate, finding that its policy excluded coverage for the claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on the minor's intentional acts, including those for negligent parental supervision, because the policy excluded losses from intentional or criminal acts by any insured person. However, it reversed the dismissal regarding a potential claim of negligence by the minor himself, as the evidence did not conclusively establish intent and the policy did not exclude negligence.
In Chiro v. Harmony Corp., plaintiff Henry Chiro sued his former employer under Louisiana's Environmental Whistleblower Statute (LSA-R.S. 30:2027) after he voluntarily quit his job protesting unsafe chemical exposure at a worksite and later faced delays in rehiring plus a lower wage upon return. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that Chiro was not an "employee" covered by the statute once he resigned, as the alleged retaliatory acts occurred afterward; even assuming coverage, the record lacked evidence linking the rehiring issues to his protected complaints or reports about environmental violations. The opinion reviewed the facts of the mustard gas incident, Chiro's OSHA contacts, and his deposition testimony showing no obstruction of his inquiries.
The case involved inmate Otis Mingo challenging the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections' calculation of his good time credits and resulting release date from a 1981 forty-year sentence for attempted armed robbery. Mingo argued for an earlier release in 2000, while the Department calculated 2003 based on the applicable good time rates. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit, finding no error in the Department's computation. It reasoned that pre-1992 law (15 days good time per month served) applied to time up to January 1, 1992, after which the new 30-days-per-30-days rate applied only prospectively to the remaining sentence portion, leading to the later release date after accounting for pre-sentence straight time and accrued credits.
The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Carol S. Cox Frain against the City of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish in 1994, where the plaintiff noted 'PLEASE HOLD SERVICE' on the petition. After a 1996 statute (La. R.S. 13:5107(D)) took effect requiring service on governmental defendants within 90 days of filing, the plaintiff requested service over two years later, more than 90 days after the law's effective date. The defendants moved to dismiss for untimely service, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the statute is procedural in nature and applies to pending cases by granting plaintiffs 90 days from its effective date to perfect service; since the plaintiff failed to do so, dismissal was required. The court rejected arguments that the statute was substantive or applied only to defendants never served at all.
The case involved Michael and Maria Barrilleaux, owners of land in Iberville Parish subject to a highway right-of-way, who sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop NPC, Inc. from installing pipelines on their property without consent or expropriation proceedings. The trial court dissolved the TRO and denied the injunction after finding the plaintiffs failed to prove irreparable injury. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reversed and remanded, holding that under La. C.C.P. art. 3663, injunctive relief is available to protect ownership or possession of immovable property against trespassers without any showing of irreparable harm. The court noted that the plaintiffs had established their ownership and that NPC had entered the property without agreement or expropriation, making the trial court's requirement of irreparable injury erroneous.