Ernest Nathan Morial

In Halford v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co., a homeowner sued his insurer after a 1974 burglary to recover the full claimed value of stolen personal property and door repairs under a homeowner's policy that provided $10,500 coverage for unscheduled personal property, subject to sublimits of $100 on money and $500 on jewelry. The trial court awarded the plaintiff $2,525.92 based on policy limits and actual cash value rather than replacement cost, plus penalties and attorney fees, but the Court of Appeal affirmed the principal award while reversing the penalties and fees. The appellate court held that cuff links qualified as jewelry subject to the $500 limit, that the policy required actual cash value, and that the insurer's tender of $2,162.02 was timely and reasonable under LSA-R.S. 22:658 because it was made within sixty days of satisfactory proof of loss and reflected a valid interpretation of the unambiguous policy provisions. The court therefore concluded the insurer had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the full claim.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a 1974 automobile-motorcycle collision at an intersection in Louisiana, where plaintiff Donald Teal on a motorcycle struck the rear of defendant Joyce Bucher's car after she attempted a right turn from the left lane of a divided highway to avoid a stopped truck. The trial court found Bucher negligent for failing to observe the approaching motorcycle before turning and awarded Teal damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and general damages, with no contributory negligence attributed to the plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed, holding that Bucher's failure to see the plaintiff—who was within her field of vision—constituted negligence as the proximate cause of the accident, and that statutes prohibiting motorcycles from passing between lanes or overtaking in the same lane did not apply to the facts. The court upheld the damage awards, including compensation for lost wages despite employer benefits received, and found no abuse of discretion in the general damages amount given the plaintiff's injuries and permanent disability.

torts & liability

This case concerned the constitutionality of Louisiana statutes (LSA-R.S. 13:1569 and 13:1570) that define a "child in need of supervision" (CINS) as one who habitually disobeys parents, commits non-criminal offenses, or runs away, and that give juvenile courts jurisdiction to adjudicate and supervise such children. The court upheld the statutes against claims of vagueness, overbreadth, punishment of status, and improper restraint of liberty for non-criminal acts. It reasoned that the laws require specific findings of prohibited conduct plus a need for care or rehabilitation at an adjudicatory hearing, include procedural safeguards, and reflect the state's parens patriae role in providing treatment rather than criminal punishment. The court affirmed the CINS adjudication and placement of the child, who had repeatedly run away and violated probation.

criminal lawfamily lawcivil rights

The case involved a real estate agent's claim for a commission on the sale of a lot that occurred four months after his six-month listing agreement expired, to an adjacent landowner the agent had visited once during the term. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the agent's suit against the property owner. The listing agreement provided for a commission on any sale within 180 days after expiration to anyone to whom the property had been quoted during the term, but the court found that no price was quoted to the buyer and that the agent's limited efforts did not produce the sale.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case was an eviction proceeding where a landlord sought to remove a tenant from leased premises, and the tenant appealed the resulting judgment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's eviction judgment was invalid because it was not rendered immediately after the hearing as required by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 4732, which prohibits taking the matter under advisement. The court reasoned that the judgment, signed five days after the hearing, failed to comply with the mandatory immediate judgment provision, making it a non-judgment from which no appeal could be taken.

propertyprocedure

The case arose when a bank, after obtaining executory process and selling the defendant's automobile to satisfy a promissory note and chattel mortgage, sought a deficiency judgment; the defendant responded with a petition to annul the executory judgment on grounds of fraud or ill practice and to recover damages for wrongful seizure. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a jury trial, ruling that the matter fell under the limitations of Article 1733 of the Code of Civil Procedure for executory or summary proceedings. On application for supervisory writs, the Court of Appeal determined that the pending claims for nullity and damages were ordinary proceedings, not executory or summary, and therefore subject to jury trial; it annulled the denial order and directed the trial court to allow the jury trial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over coverage under a fire insurance policy that excluded liability for losses occurring while a building was vacant or unoccupied for more than 60 consecutive days. The court held that the policy provided coverage for the fire damage because the apartment remained furnished with the former resident's belongings and was visited weekly for cleaning and to exchange clothes, meaning it was not vacant or unoccupied. The core reasoning was that such use constituted occupancy in the ordinary sense of the word, any ambiguity in the policy terms would be construed against the insurer, and the policy did not contain a special definition that would alter the meaning of "unoccupied." The court reduced the damage award to the amount conceded by the insurer because the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proven that all claimed repairs were necessary.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned an ex-husband's attempt to cancel a judicial mortgage held by a bank against his ex-wife's interest in former community property that he purchased at a public partition sale by licitation. The trial court refused to order cancellation of the mortgage, and the court of appeal affirmed. The majority held that under the 1896 amendment to Civil Code article 1338, a mortgage on a co-owner's share is transferred to the sale proceeds (and thus extinguished as to the property) only if the mortgage holder is made a party to the partition proceeding, which was not done here; therefore the mortgage remained effective against the property purchased. The court strictly construed the statute because it affects property rights and rejected the argument that the low sale price relative to a superior conventional mortgage justified cancellation.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a defendant's action to nullify a $13,073.55 default judgment entered against him in an underlying damages suit. The defendant argued that the judgment contained vices of form under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2002 and ill practices under Article 2004 because motions to withdraw and substitute plaintiff's counsel were not served on him, and that the trial court should have allowed evidence of perjury in the default confirmation hearing. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the nullity action. The court reasoned that the defendant had been personally served with the original petition and made an appearance, so there was no total lack of process; the lack of service on the substitution motions did not prevent the defendant from defending over six years or create an inequitable situation; and vague allegations of inconsistencies in testimony did not establish perjury warranting nullity.

procedure

In Friedman v. Oliver, the home sellers and their attorney-notary sued the prospective buyer for forfeiture of a deposit note and for legal and notarial fees after the buyer failed to complete the purchase by the November 1, 1973 deadline specified in the buy-sell contract. The court affirmed the judgment for the sellers on the deposit note, concluding that the buyer failed to prove either rescission of the contract or that it was subject to an unfulfilled unwritten suspensive condition regarding receipt of a salary bonus. The court reversed the judgment for the attorney, holding that the attorney-client relationship constituted a mandate terminable at the client's will, and the attorney could not recover for services performed after learning in early October that the buyer would not proceed with the purchase.

property

This case involved a dispute over the award of permanent alimony following a divorce under Louisiana law. The husband obtained a divorce on the grounds of living separate and apart, but the wife sought alimony claiming she was not at fault in the separation. The district court granted the divorce and awarded the wife alimony of $137 every two weeks after finding she was free from fault based on her testimony of abuse and the trial judge's assessment of conflicting evidence. On appeal, the court affirmed the alimony award, upholding the constitutionality of the relevant statute and determining that the trial court's finding of no fault on the wife's part was not manifestly erroneous.

family law

The case was a tort suit brought by Ernest L. Perry against Texaco Company and its insurer after Perry was injured while working at a Texaco facility. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that Texaco qualified as Perry's statutory employer under La.R.S. 23:1061. This made workers' compensation under R.S. 23:1032 Perry's exclusive remedy, barring a tort action. The court found that Perry's direct employer, Arc & Arms, Inc., had merely supplied labor to Texaco rather than acting as an independent general contractor, and that the work of installing a drain at the gas compressor station was part of Texaco's own trade, business, or occupation.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Della and Wess J. Tassin against Allstate Insurance Company and others for damages arising from a March 1971 automobile accident. Plaintiffs filed suit in April 1972, and defendants raised the peremptory exception of prescription under Louisiana Civil Code Article 3536, claiming the one-year prescriptive period had run. The trial court overruled the exception after hearing evidence that Allstate personnel had asked plaintiffs' counsel to delay filing and promised settlement, then awarded damages to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that defendants had preserved their prescription defense despite stipulating liability, that the record did not support an interruption or suspension of prescription, and that the claims must be dismissed.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a quo warranto proceeding under Louisiana law to determine the rightful directors of Foreman-Scott & Associates, Inc. Plaintiffs, who were record shareholders, challenged defendants' refusal to count one shareholder's votes at a June 1974 meeting, which led defendants to declare a deadlock and retain their board positions. The trial court ruled that defendants had no legal right to serve as directors and that plaintiffs were the lawfully elected directors, while dismissing defendants' related claims for a receivership and injunction. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that quo warranto is a narrow extraordinary remedy focused solely on authority to hold corporate office, and that unrelated allegations of prior mismanagement, stock transfer issues, or attachment could not be raised as defenses or used to expand the proceeding. The court further noted that defendants' attempts to inject receivership or injunction claims violated procedural rules like C.C.P. Art. 1111 and lacked any statutory basis under R.S. 12:151.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Finn v. Ponsaa, plaintiff Dolores Finn sued to recover $10,000 she had given to defendant John V. Ponsaa to invest in a gourmet food business, claiming there was no mutual agreement because she believed she was buying a direct interest rather than corporate stock and that the sale should be rescinded for failure to deliver a stock certificate. The trial court dismissed her claim for return of the funds, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court found that Finn was aware she was dealing with an existing corporation (Ponsaa's Caterers, Inc.), had served as its vice president and manager, and had participated in its operations, establishing that a valid sale of twenty shares occurred upon agreement as to the thing sold and the price. It held that under Louisiana law a stock certificate is merely evidence of ownership and not required for a perfected transfer between the parties themselves, so the lack of contemporaneous delivery did not allow rescission. The court rejected the mutuality argument based on Finn's own conduct and knowledge of the corporate structure.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a tort action in which plaintiff Harold Roy Osborn alleged that a car accident was caused by brake failure due to negligent repair by mechanic Ronald Baudier and defective parts supplied by manufacturers Raybestos-Manhattan, Bendix Corporation, and their insurers. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the claims against all defendants. The court reasoned that Osborn had contracted and paid only for replacement of the master cylinder, which the defendants properly performed without defect or negligence, and that evidence such as skid marks at the scene and expert testimony showed the brakes had not completely failed as claimed. Instead, the court concluded the accident resulted from the plaintiff's own negligence, such as excessive speed.

torts & liability

In Sykes v. Sykes, a husband appealed two trial court judgments that awarded his pregnant wife $20 per week in alimony pendente lite plus $20 per week in child support for their two children, and that denied him discharge from those payments. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed both judgments. Although the trial court had improperly considered the wife's potential status as a creditor in the husband's bankruptcy proceedings, the appellate court held that the awards were properly based on Civil Code Articles 148 and 231. The court reasoned that once the wife showed need, a presumption arose that the husband could pay at least minimal amounts, and he failed to prove he was absolutely unemployable rather than merely unemployed, as required by precedent such as Rakosky v. Rakosky.

family law

This case involved Cleveland Carter's claim for workers' compensation benefits against his employer, Avondale Shipyards, Inc., alleging that an accident on May 10, 1971, while lifting heavy test bars caused him disabling injuries including back pain and involuntary muscle movements. The trial court awarded him total and permanent disability benefits, which Avondale appealed, arguing that no accident occurred and there was no causal link to the disability. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana affirmed the judgment, finding that Carter had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident happened and that it was a precipitating factor in his psychiatric condition known as conversion reaction, despite pre-existing emotional issues. The court reasoned that an employer takes an employee as he finds him and is liable for compensation when a work-related accident triggers or contributes to the disability, even if it is psychiatric in nature.

labor & employment

This case involves a dispute between adjoining property owners in New Orleans over a shared party wall. Plaintiff Borenstein, owner of the San Jacinto Hotel, alleged that openings in the wall for light and ventilation created a servitude of light and view based on prior agreements with the neighboring owners, and that the defendants' planned construction would interfere with those rights while also damaging the wall through neglect. The trial court granted the defendants' exception of no cause of action and dismissed the suit after considering city ordinances and other evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that an exception of no cause of action must be decided solely on the well-pleaded allegations of the petition, which were sufficient to state a claim for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a personal injury claim where plaintiff Daniel Foxworth, who was intoxicated and unconscious in a narrow driveway, was run over by an ice truck operated by employees of defendant Harold G. Kelt, Jr. d/b/a Kelt Ice Co. Foxworth sued Kelt and his insurer State Farm for damages from a severely broken leg requiring surgery, skin grafts, and long-term disability. The court affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages to Foxworth, applying the last clear chance doctrine because the employees discovered his peril but negligently waved the truck into the driveway without ensuring his safety, overriding any contributory negligence. The court rejected claims of intentional tort and remanded only the award for medical expenses to permit Charity Hospital to intervene and assert its statutory privilege for recovery of costs.

torts & liabilityprocedure