Insurance Dispute

Unexpected Acceleration or Failure to Yield? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Car Accident Case

Published on: September 7, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

girl-with-red-hat-oaKGY3tYVvw-unsplash-scaled In personal injury law, car accidents at intersections are all too common. However, the case of Trapp v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company brings a unique twist: the claim of a sudden, unexpected vehicle malfunction. This Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating all aspects of an accident before assigning fault, especially when a vehicle defect may have contributed.

The case arose from an accident at an intersection in Louisiana. Mr. Trapp was entering the highway from a gas station parking lot when his truck collided with Mr. Martin’s truck. While Mr. Trapp was cited for failure to yield, Mr. Martin claimed his truck suddenly accelerated out of control, preventing him from avoiding the collision.

The trial court initially granted summary judgment, finding Mr. Martin 100% at fault. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, stating that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding comparative fault and the potential for a third party (the vehicle manufacturer) to be at fault.

Louisiana Court Upholds Modest Damages in Minor Car Accident Case: Highlighting the Importance of Proving Causation and the Impact of Pre-Existing Conditions

Published on: September 2, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-aleksandr-neplokhov-486399-1230677-scaled A recent ruling from the Louisiana Court of Appeal underscores the challenges of securing substantial damages in personal injury cases, especially when pre-existing conditions and the severity of the accident are at play. The case, Pourciau v. Melville and State Farm, involved a minor rear-end collision. While the defendant admitted fault, the court ultimately upheld a modest damage award, emphasizing the plaintiff’s burden to prove a direct causal link between the accident and the claimed injuries.

Douglas Pourciau was rear-ended by Dennis Melville at an intersection in Baton Rouge. While the accident was minor, Pourciau claimed it aggravated his pre-existing back and neck pain. He sued Melville and his insurer, State Farm, for damages.

The trial court found Melville partially at fault but awarded Pourciau only a modest amount in general damages, citing the lack of evidence linking his ongoing pain to the accident. Pourciau appealed, seeking a higher award and additional damages for future medical expenses and loss of use of his vehicle.

When Does an Insurance Contract End? Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Dispute Over Coverage Extension

Published on: August 30, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-albinberlin-906982-scaled In the complex world of insurance coverage disputes, a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of thoroughly examining factual issues before granting summary judgment. The case involved a personal injury lawsuit and a subsequent dispute over insurance coverage. The appellate court’s ruling is a stark reminder that seemingly straightforward cases can hinge on nuanced contractual interpretations and disputed facts.

The case originated from a 1998 accident where Bobbie Sanders, an employee of Mark A. Robicheaux, Inc., was injured while working on a vessel constructed by Swiftships, Inc. Sanders sued Swiftships, which, in turn, filed a third-party demand against its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company, claiming coverage under a policy issued to Robicheaux.

The crux of the dispute was whether Swiftships qualified as an additional insured under Robicheaux’s policy, even though the initial contract between the two companies had expired. Swiftships argued that the business relationship continued under the original contract’s terms, while United Fire contended there was no agreement to extend the contract.

Driver Not Liable for Passenger’s Injury in Accident Beyond His Control

Published on: August 18, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-dominika-kwiatkowska-1796968-3368844-scaled Sometimes, being a passenger in a car can be a frustrating and disturbing experience. This is especially true when actions beyond the passenger’s control, such as being involved in a collision, put his or her life in danger. When such a situation arises, the injured passenger will, understandably, seek compensation from the responsible party. However, if the person who caused the accident leaves the scene and is never apprehended by law enforcement, an injured person may turn their attention elsewhere for financial compensation. Such a situation arose following a car accident on a stretch of highway between Jennings and Lafayette, Louisiana.

Kyle Jordan was driving a rental car with Riley Moulton as a passenger. The vehicle was sideswiped, causing Jordan’s car to flip over and injure Moulton. The hit-and-run driver was never identified, so Mouton sued both Jordan and the rental car company, EAN Holdings, for damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that since Mouton admitted in his deposition that Jordan was driving safely at the time of the accident and did nothing to cause it, Moulton offered no evidence to support a theory of recovery against Jordan or EAN Holdings. The trial court granted the defendant’s motions for summary judgment. Mouton appealed to Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

The Appellate Court reviewed the facts of the case as laid out by Mouton himself in his deposition testimony. Mouton stated that Jordan had set the cruise control in the car to 70 MPH, consistent with the speed limit, and was “driving correct.” He further testified that the accident occurred when Jordan made a proper change into the left lane to pass a large truck.

Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System Loses Battle Over Disability Insurance With East Baton Rouge Women

Published on: August 15, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-ann-h-45017-3095954-scaled On-the-job injuries can sometimes result in employment termination when the injury prohibits you from completing your work. When this happens, state-funded disability retirement benefits can keep former employees financially afloat; however, eligibility for such benefits depends on how long you have worked for the employer and when you file your claim.

Bessie Hall worked for the State of Louisiana in East Baton Rouge for over seventeen years. On July 13, 2012, Ms. Hall suffered an on-the-job injury at the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services. Because her injury prevented her from working, her employer terminated her in September 2013.

Over two years later, Ms. Hall applied for disability retirement benefits through LASERS, the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System. LASERS, however, found Ms. Hall ineligible for these benefits. Ms. Hall sued the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. The District Court held Ms. Hall was eligible for benefits, and LASERS appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

Prior Mistake Does Not Waive Insurer’s Defense In Subsequent Claim

Published on: October 24, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

supreme_court_building_washington_3_9-scaled If you are in a car accident and your insurance pays your claim, you likely expect the same thing will happen if you are subsequently in a similar accident. What happens if your insurer paid your prior claim, but tries to deny a subsequent claim?

Brandon Forvendel was injured in a car accident. When the accident occurred, he was driving a car he owned and was insured by State Farm. Forvendel had uninsured motorist coverage. After the accident, Forvendel recovered under his uninsured motorist policy.

When the accident occurred, he was living with his mother, who also had insurance through State Farm. Forvendel also tried to recover under his mother’s uninsured motorist policy, which had higher policy limits. State Farm denied his attempt to recover under both his and his mother’s policies under the anti-stacking provisions in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c). Forvendel then filed a lawsuit against State Farm.

Insurance Coverage Turns On Distinction Between Flood Damage And Mechanical Issue

Published on: September 6, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

dsc05934_0-scaled Dealing with the aftermath of a flood is never fun. This is especially true when the flood damages one of your vehicles. This is the situation Michael Jacobs found himself in after one of his cars was damaged in a flood. After a long fight with his insurance company, he eventually prevailed and was awarded damages.

Jacobs owned multiple vehicles that GEICO insured. His parish in North Louisiana was affected by heavy flooding. When the flooding started, Jacobs and his brother tried to move the vehicles from his house to higher ground but were unable to remove them before the floodwaters rose, so they could not drive up to the house. Jacobs waded through the floodwater to retrieve one of the vehicles, a 2001 Honda Accord. In the days following the flood, the Honda kept overheating. Jacobs claimed this had only occurred after the flood.

Jacobs submitted a claim to GEICO for the damage to the vehicle. The insurance inspector did not identify any flood-related problems and determined the upper radiator hose had blown out. Another mechanic gave Jacobs an opinion and concluded there were issues with his spark plugs. GEICO ultimately denied Jacobs’ claim because it had suffered a mechanical failure that was not flood-related. Jacobs filed a lawsuit against GEICO, alleging his Honda had been damaged from the flooding. At trial, the court ruled the Honda had suffered water damage and awarded vehicle property damages and attorney fees. GEICO filed an appeal.

Management Company Not Qualified As Additional Insured In Cleaning Company’s Insurance Policy

Published on: September 1, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

ladder_art_red_garden-scaled It can be challenging to interpret insurance policies, especially when they involve complex provisions such as coverage for an additional insured. Before signing an insurance policy, it is imperative to understand its language and what it does and does not cover. Here, the plain language of the insurance policy proved instrumental in the appellate court’s ruling.

Pamela Sloane was injured while working for Integrity Cleaning Services (“Integrity”) at Forestwood Apartments. She was cleaning a ceiling fan while standing on a ladder. She inadvertently touched an exposed wire, which electrocuted her, and she fell from the ladder. Sloane filed a lawsuit against CLK Multifamily Management (“CLK”) and others. Sloane claimed CLK had not adequately maintained the premises or warned of the dangerous condition of the exposed wire. CLK filed its answer to the lawsuit, denying the allegations, and added Travelers Indemnity (“Travelers”) to the lawsuit. CLK claimed Integrity was contractually required to have a general liability insurance policy that covered CLK as additional insureds.

Travelers filed a summary judgment motion, claiming CLK was not an additional insured under the policy. Travelers attached a copy of the relevant insurance policy to its summary judgment motion. CLK disagreed and claimed it was indeed an additional insured. The trial court concluded CLK was not qualified as an additional insured and granted Travelers’ summary judgment motion.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Rules on Reasonableness of Forum Selection Clause

Published on: July 21, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

detail_forum_romanum_rome-scaled Most of us get into contracts, not fully understanding all the ins and outs of what we are signing. Similarly, the multiple provisions that can slither their way into contracts can include things like forum selection clauses which can be easily overlooked. But when a lawsuit erupts, can you argue a provision isn’t applicable? The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses this question in the following case.

Al Copeland Investments, L.L.C. owned a food manufacturing facility in Louisiana. In October and December of 2015, there was some property damage to the facility, and they submitted a reimbursement claim under an insurance policy. Their insurance was held with First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”). They denied this claim, and AI Copeland sued in the Eastern District of Louisiana, believing they were entitled to recover from the costs and damages of the property. First Specialty asked the court to dismiss the case because the policies forum selection clause requires litigation in New York State court, not Louisiana.

A forum selection clause is a section in a contract that states how all disputes must be litigated in a specific court in a jurisdiction that the parties agreed to.

Analysis of Insurance Coverage Exclusion in a Complex Liability Case

Published on: July 19, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

news_stock_newspaper_glasses-scaled In the realm of insurance coverage disputes, a recent case has brought attention to the application of policy exclusions and their impact on the availability of coverage. Daphne Richardson Valteau took legal action after her father had been stabbed to death on premises owned by The Terraces Limited Partnership (“The Terraces”). The Terraces was managed by Latter & Blum Property Management, Inc. (“Latter & Blum”), while another company, Patriot Protection Agency, Inc. (“Patriot”), had been handling the security services for The Terraces.

Patriot’s liability insurance was through First Mercury Insurance Company (“First Mercury”), First Mercury moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Valteau’s claims. First Mercury argued that the exclusions provided in Patriot’s insurance policy regarding intentional and criminal acts were valid and enforceable. After its motion was denied, First Mercury appealed, petitioning for a writ of certiorari from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

After reviewing the contractual language of Patriot’s insurance policy with First Mercury, specifically the “Exclusion of Specific Work” provision, the Appeals Court identified various issues that need to be addressed before summary judgment could be ruled on, as well as a major distinction from precedent Louisiana case law. The Court distinguished this case based on how the exclusionary language essentially provided no coverage to Patriot if the incident occurred on a property “established for the purpose of providing subsidized housing….”