Articles Posted in Product Defect

Published on: | By

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was passed in an effort to prevent class action lawsuit abuse. CAFA changed the practice of class action litigation in state and federal courts. This change was accomplished by CAFA’s jurisdictional alterations in both the diversity and removal components of the traditional framework of class action practice, i.e. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In Williams v Homeland Insurance, the Fifth Circuit applied the “local controversy” exception of CAFA to the facts of the case, determining that a class arbitration is not, nor does it preclude a class action. Williams provides a lesson in the application of the elements of CAFA and an understanding of CAFA’s features. The decision also demonstrates yet another unique feature of Louisiana law that distinguishes it from the law of all of the other jurisdictions in the United States: the Louisiana Direct Action Statute.

CAFA changed the rules for federal diversity jurisdiction and removal. The Act enables large class action law suits to be filed in and/or removed to federal court. CAFA changed the numerosity requirement of Rule 23 from by raising the requirement from 40 class members to more than 100 class members; the citizenship requirement of Rule 23 by relaxing the diversity criteria, i.e. any class member must be diverse from any defendant; and the amount-in-controversy (from one named plaintiff having a claim of more than $75,000) to the total of $5 million. In addition, CAFA incorporated looser removal rules: in diversity cases any defendant can remove the case (including in-state defendants); any defendant can remove without the unanimous consent of the other defendants; there is no 1 year limit on the timing for removal of the case to another court’s jurisdiction; and the decision to grant or deny a remand is subject to appellate review.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

On behalf of the Berniard Law Firm, we hope that all of our friends and followers have had a relaxing and restful holiday. Posting will resume on Tuesday

Published on: | By

On June 27, 2008, Betty Jean Russell went to see her eye doctor at Eye Associates of Northeast Louisiana. Russell, 78, who required a wheelchair to get around, was driven to the apppointment by her granddaughter, Ashley Dixon. While Dixon remained in the waiting room, an Eye Associates employee wheeled Russell back to an examination room. There, Russell was required to move to one of the facility’s wheelchairs in order to access one of the examination machines. Then, in order for her to look into a different machine, Russell was required to return to her own wheelchair. In the process of moving back to her own wheelchair unassisted, Russell fell, injuring her shoulder and breaking her thighbone. The Eye Associates employees did not call an ambulance, but rather helped Russell off the floor and back into her wheelchair. Dixon immediately drove her grandmother to the ER where Russell underwent surgery to set her broken leg. Although Russell was able to walk from time to time prior to her injuries, she was no longer able to walk at all. Russell filed suit against Eye Associates and Hanover Insurance Co., its general liability insurer. She also filed a petition for a medical review panel under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act. The Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company (LAMMICO), the professional liability insurer for Eye Associates, intervened in the action. Hanover filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Russell was injured while Eye Associates employees were delivering professional services, and therefore Russell’s claim was one of medical malpractice. LAMMICO, on the other hand, argued in its own motion for summary judgment that Russell’s fall was “not treatment-related” or “caused by a dereliction of professional skill,” which meant that LAMMICO was not liable for coverage for her injuries.

The trial court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, during which it determined that this was not a medical malpractice case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of LAMMICO and denied Hanover’s motion. Hanover appealed on the basis that “the undisputed facts
and evidence establish that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred as a result of a ‘medical incident,’ as defined by the LAMMICO policy.” On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed that “[w]hen determining whether a policy affords coverage for an incident, the insured bears the burden of proving that the incident falls within the policy’s terms.” Furthermore, “summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion, under which coverage could be afforded.” The court noted that the definition of malpractice under Louisiana law includes “unintentional torts by healthcare providers and their employees based on health care or professional services rendered.” The LAMMICO policy maintained by Eye Associates provided professional liability coverage for “incidents arising out of the rendering or failure to render professional services.” The policy defined professional services to include treatment, diagnosis, rendering medical opinions or advice, or performing management or administrative duties by Eye Associates employees. LAMMICO argued that no doctor (or other health care provider) was involved in the accident, as “no assessment of [Russell’s] condition had taken place” at the time of her fall. However, the court noted that Russell testified that the Eye Associates employee involved in her accident had already used one type of machine to examine her eyes and was attempting to
position her in order to use another machine; this move from one wheelchari to another was necessary in order to continue Russell’s eye examination. This point, in the court’s view, created “a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the accident constitutes a medical incident which occurred in connection with the rendering of professional services, satisfying the statutory definition of malpractice and meeting the terms of the LAMMICO policy for coverage.” Accordingly, the court found that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of LAMMICO. It reversed the trial court’s judgment an remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case shows how seemingly simple claims can turn complex in litigation. Much of the Second Circuit’s decision rested on a review of the insurance policies themselves, as contracts, to determine the potential for coverage for Russell’s claims. As with any personal injury case, it was essential for the plaintiff to retain experienced counsel to ensure that all potential defendants were brought into the litigation.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

The Berniard Law Firm would like to wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Regular posting will resume in 2012! Have a happy, and SAFE, holiday season!

Published on: | By

When litigation involves multiple parties, all of which are big national or international organizations, there is a higher likelihood that something is going to end up in the litigation process. The unfortunate nature of insurance coverage is that companies will try to find little nuances to try to argue their case, or will add little nuances to make any future case more difficult for opposing parties. One party to a contractual agreement may cite to these nuances to find a loophole to escape from any potential liability and, subsequently, leave someone who believed they had full coverage with nothing. Despite these loophole efforts, a court can still look at the realities of the circumstances and come to real life conclusions to the exclusion of the argument of either party. This is true in the case of Federal Insurance Company v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, when the court ultimately looked at the reality of a contractual agreement and decided that no matter what the terms of the contract were, the whole contract was in regard to a personal injury case.

Our previous blog post discussed this case but a brief summary is as follows:
The case began when Wayne Robinson was unfortunately hurt by an explosion at a chemical plant. The explosion occurred because there were certain chemicals used by the plant that reacted with each other to cause the explosion. One of the defendants in Mr. Robinson’s case was Thomas and Betts Corporation (hereinafter T&B). T&B allegedly manufactured a product that contributed to the explosion that caused Mr. Robinson’s injuries. T&B had liability insurance from both New Hampshire Insurance Co., which was the primary insurance provider, and Federal Insurance Co., which was the secondary, or excess insurance provider. Ultimately, Mr. Robinson settled with T&B.

The interest of discussing policy nuances hinges upon the terms of the agreement were between T&B and Mr. Robinson. In that agreement, T&B would give Mr. Robinson $5 million for bodily injuries and an additional $1.2 million for a potential breach of contract claim another plaintiff may have had against Mr. Robinson. In fact, by settling with T&B, Mr. Robinson was breaching his agreement with the plaintiff company. After Mr. Robinson reached his agreement with T&B the other plaintiff sued Mr. Robinson for breach of contract. This breach of contract was supposed to be covered by his settlement agreement with T&B. However, soon after the settlement, Mr. Robinson received a letter from New Hampshire Co., T&B’s primary insurer, that it was going to cover his $5 million settlement, but would not cover his $1.2 million settlement because it was for a breach of contract and therefore, outside the scope of its policy covering T&B.

As a separate issue, the court discussed whether the New Hampshire policy covered contractual agreements. However, it came to the conclusion that the use of the phrase “legally obligated to pay” rendered the policy to cover tortious actions. However, the court went on to explain that the entire settlement between T&B and Mr. Robinson did in fact relate to and cover the bodily injury claim. The settlement could only cover the bodily injury claim because the only action for which T&B was liable to Mr. Robinson was the bodily injury. Therefore, the settlement could not be for any breach of contract claim.

The $1.2 million settlement was a by-product of T&B inducing Mr. Robinson to settle his bodily injury claim against T&B. The court held that even though this separate amount is categorized as reimbursement for a breach of contract claim, it is still within the bodily injury claim because the settlement was made in consideration for the bodily injury claim. Therefore, because the bodily injury claim was covered by the New Hampshire policy, New Hampshire was liable for the entire settlement. Mr. Robinson received money from Federal, T&B’s secondary insurer, therefore Federal stepped into T&B’s shoes in its claim for reimbursement from New Hampshire. Therefore, New Hampshire owed Federal the money it paid to Mr. Robinson.

Even in cases where a contract defines things in a certain manner or when the law defines different terms, the realities of a contract are the ultimate facts that define a contract. Although, the New Hampshire policy only covered tortious actions and even though the settlement between Mr. Robinson and T&B defined two different amounts, one for bodily injury and the other for a breach of contract, the reality was that both amounts were in consideration for the bodily injury claim and therefore the reality was that New Hampshire owed the entire amount as per its policy with T&B.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

The terms in a contractual agreement between parties can have the effect of changing entire meanings of contracts. This is especially true in more complex litigation and more complex business agreements. If a business agreement requires the participation of multiple partners or parties, an ambiguously defined contract can have the effect of increasing the amount of litigation which will occur every time there is a legal dispute between any or all of the parties. The clear practical effect of writing clear-cut and well defined contracts is that, in the long run, there will be less of a chance that any dispute will require a long, drawn-out litigation process which has the effect of draining the wallets of all the parties involved.

This is most important where one or more of the parties is a single individual with limited resources, and in some situations, is represented by smaller firms that have much less financial resources compared to bigger business entities with more resources and financing at their disposal. As a legal practice, any person that becomes part of a contractual agreement should clearly define any type of ambiguous terminology in an effort to save the agreement from getting the definitional application of common law or practice. Never is this more necessary than when an individual is pushed up against an insurance agency that holds their financial future in their hands. The importance of defining a contract can be clearly seen in the case of Federal Insurance Company v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.

Both Federal and New Hampshire insurance companies became involved in litigation because they both insured Thomas and Betts Corporation (hereinafter T&B). T&B made a product which contributed to an explosion at an aluminum processing plant in Gramercy, Louisiana, leaving employee Wayne Robinson with injuries. Ultimately, Mr. Robinson sued T&B, which had liability insurance from both Federal and New Hampshire. Thus, when the suit began, Federal and New Hampshire’s policies kicked into effect. New Hampshire was the “first insurer” for T&B. Federal, on the other hand, was T&B’s second layer excess insurer. On the eve of the trial, Mr. Robinson came to an agreement with T&B which had the effect of potentially extinguishing the law suit. T&B was going to pay Mr. Robinson $5 million dollars in damages for his unfortunate bodily injuries, and an additional $1.2 million in consideration for a potential breach of contract claim by another plaintiff company against Mr. Robinson. Subsequent to this settlement, New Hampshire notified Mr. Robinson that it was going to pay him the $5 million, but that it would not pay him the $1.2 million promised by T&B. When Mr. Robinson then received a letter from the plaintiff company, he sent the notice to Federal to show the demand made of him. Federal ended up giving Mr. Robinson $990,000 for the potential breach of contract claim against Mr. Robinson. The pertinent part of the agreement between T&B and Mr. Robinson is as follows:

“Thomas and Betts and Its Insurers agree to hold harmless, indemnify and defend Wayne Robins, et al, The Fields law Firm and Cleo Fields for any amount owed to AXA, Kaisers Subrogated Property Reinsurers, Caleb Didriksen and the Didriksen Law Firm, not to exceed 1.2 million dollars.”

Eventually, Federal sought the $990,000 from New Hampshire arguing that the amount should have been given to Mr. Robinson as part of T&B’s policy with New Hampshire. New Hampshire argued that this amount was not within T&B’s policy with it. The pertinent part of T&B’s policy with New Hampshire was that New Hampshire, “becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed by [T&B] under an Insured Contract because of Bodily Injury.” This seems simple enough, however there was no definition of “legally obligated to pay.” In the world of contracts, the contracting parties have the ability to define things in any manner they see fit. These definitions should, however, be included in the contract itself in the index of terms. When a contract does not define any of the material terms, the terms should be filled in by the court. In this case, the court decided that since the phrase was not defined, it should be filled in with what was commonly used in Louisiana. It Louisiana, it was well settled that the use of the phrase was for damages arising out of tortious actions and not from a contractual obligation. Therefore, on the face of the assertion, Federal would be out of luck because it sought money from New Hampshire for money it gave Mr. Robinson due to a breach of contract. Even though the court sided with Federal for other reasons, Federal would have been dealt a strict blow because it did not read the policy between T&B and New Hampshire clearly enough to see that the term was not defined.

Therefore, before taking any action any party should clearly read any existing agreement between relevant parties and should make sure any contract it signs has clearly defined terms that will not lead to unnecessary litigation which will only serve to drain resources.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

In order to avoid extreme costs incurred from accidents, some businesses purchase two types of insurance policies. The first and most common type of insurance is primary insurance. Under this policy, business assets and liabilities are covered in exchange for the payment of a premium. This coverage, however, is capped in order to protect the insurance company from excessive claims. For this reason, many businesses, especially those dealing with expensive equipment and goods, will carry a second insurance policy that provides coverage beyond what is offered through the primary insurer. These policies are known as excess insurance. Premiums for these excess policies are often lower and provide a much higher cap on claim amounts. Excess insurers are able to provide such cheap, yet extensive coverage because the chance of such a catastrophic accident occurring that exhausts the primary insurance cap is minimal. However, as is evident in Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., where multiple boats collided on the Mississippi River, maritime accident costs sometimes extend beyond primary insurance coverage, bringing questions of how excess insurance money should be handled by courts.

When insurance disputes arise, many times the insurance company will concede the full policy amount, deposit it with the court, withdraw from the proceedings, and leave the claiming parties to battle out their rights to the money in court. Statutory provisions guide the timeline for when primary insurance policies must be deposited with the court, but what is the protocol for an excess insurer that wants to follow the primary insurer’s footsteps? This was the main question in the American Commercial Lines case. The plaintiffs sued the excess insurers claiming that the excess insurers deposited the policy amount with the court too late, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that could have been distributed amongst the victims. In deciding the case the court had to analyze a couple different issues.

The first issue dealt with determining what law applies to the case. Since the case involves maritime insurance, the court had to decide between maritime law and state law. Statutes provide that if no federal maritime law controls the issue, then state law applies. Because no specific maritime provision covers when an excess insurer should deposit policy amounts with the court, Louisiana court applies. This means, as mentioned above, that excess insurance will not kick in until after all primary insurance funds have been exhausted. This essentially answers the question the second issue poses: when does the excess insurer need to deposit policy amounts with the court?

Continue reading

Published on: | By

When an insurance company provides coverage to a business, the contract typically includes a duty to defend the inured business against any coverage claims. If an insurer refuses to provide the insured with claim defense, then the insured business may sue the insurance company for indemnification of defense fees. However, a question often arises as to how much an insurance company is required to pay for indemnification. This issue was brought to light in a recent Supreme Court of Louisiana case when insurance company Continental was sued for indemnification by a manufacturing company, T&L.

When an insurance company is sued for indemnification, several options exist for a defense. One defense, which was used in the Continental case, is policy exclusion. Under this defense, the insurance company claims that the individuals seeking damages from the insured business fall outside the policy coverage and thus outside the realm requiring the insurer to defend the insured business. In the Continental case, for example, Continental refused to defend T&L against claims brought by T&L employees because certain time frames of T&L’s policy did not cover injuries sustained by employees.
One way to defeat a policy exclusion defense is to prove that the insurance company waived its right to the defense. Typically, a waiver occurs when an individual, or in this case a company, has an existing right, knowledge of its existence, and an intention to relinquish that right. However, even if there is no intention to give the right up, conduct that creates a reasonable belief that the right has been relinquished will constitute a waiver of that right. Therefore, if an insurance company undertakes a defense on behalf of its insured against claims that the insurance company knows do not fall under the insurance policy, and does not reserve its rights to withdraw defense, then it is likely that the insurance company has waived its right to a policy exclusion defense. This means that if the insurance company was to back out of the defense it would be held liable for indemnification to the insured because the insured relied on the insurer’s actions to defend them.

However, it is important to make a distinction between waiver and breach of duty to defend in the insurance context. While a waiver involves an insurer relinquishing its rights to deny coverage under a policy, a breach of a duty to defend expressly denies coverage under a policy. In essence, the two are complete opposites. If an insurance company waives its right to deny coverage, then the insurance company, if they withdraw from defense, is likely to be forced to indemnify the insured for all defense costs for all claims. On the other hand, as was the holding in the Continental case, a breach of a duty to defend falls under contract law, and would find the insurance company liable for reasonable defense costs. In addition, if the breach was made in bad faith, statutory penalties will be imposed upon the insurer. Liability for such claims is also allocated on a pro rata basis between all insurance policies. This lowers the costs incurred upon insurers, which, for Continental, decreased from over four million dollars to just shy of two-hundred thousand dollars.

If your business is at odds with an insurance company over policy claim defense, be sure to consider whether or not the insurance company has waived its right to a policy exclusion defense. If the insurer has, then it is likely that the insured will be able to recoup costs paid to all claimants. If, on the other hand, the insurer has simply breached a duty to defend, you may only be able to recoup reasonable defense costs.

Even if you find this article helpful, insurance law is a complicated matter that should not be approached without consultation from a practicing insurance attorney.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

As previously discussed in Part I, the case of Charles Ebinger, et ux. v. Venus Construction Corporation, et al. focuses on the time period in which a claim for damages can be brought against a contractor and the time period in which a contractor may bring an indemnifying action against a subcontractor. This Part, however, focuses on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s reasoning as to how it interpreted the applicable statute of limitations.

The Ebingers moved into their newly built home in April of 1997. On October 9, 2003, the Ebingers filed suit against Venus Construction alleging defects in the home’s foundation had caused cracks in the drywall, tile, brick walls, and floor. Venus Construction filed its indemnity claim on September 22, 2006 against the engineer and subcontractor that supplied the foundation.

First the Court determined when the cause of action arose. The Court determined that “regardless of the length of the peremptive period, it [the peremptive period] began when the owners took possession of the house or filed an acceptance of the work.” In this case, a certificate of occupancy issued on April 22, 1997, and therefore, that is when the peremptive period began. At the time the Ebingers moved into their home, the original statute was in place and thus the Ebingers would have ten (10) years to file a claim.

Second, the Louisiana Supreme Court looked at the language of the statutes to determine whether the superseding statutes were written to act retroactively or have prospective application. Though the peremptive period was ten years at the time the statute of limitations began to run, the legislature amended the governing statute in 1999, substituting ‘seven’ for ‘ten’ years as the peremptive period. Further, this Act stated “the provisions of this Act shall have prospective application only and shall apply to contracts entered into on or after the effective date of this Act.” Thus, at this time, the Ebingers would still have a valid claim through the original ten year peremptive period because the amended statute had only prospective applicability, not retroactive applicability, as specifically written in the Act by the legislature. Next, the Court looked at the second revision of the Act in 2003 which substitute ‘five’ for ‘seven’ years and did not maintain the ‘prospective application’ language. The Court states that the legislature’s actions in drafting a law are knowing and intentional, and thus, if the legislature meant for the ‘prospective application’ language to continue, then the legislature would have included it in the Act. However, because the legislature did not, the Court’s interpretation is that the 2003 Amendment supersedes the original statute and makes the peremptive period five years, even for those causes of action that arose back when the ten and seven year periods were applicable.

Third, the Court examines Constitutional rights to Due Process and determines that the statute of limitations is a procedural law and as long as it does not disturb a vested legal right, a right that at the moment may be expressed, then the statute of limitations (peremptive period) may be applied retroactively. In the end, the Ebingers’ claim is not perempted even though it was filed two months after the 2003 Amendment because the Ebingers’ right to sue had vested the moment they attained the certificate of occupancy. However, as for Venus Construction, “the mere expectancy of a future benefit,” for Venus Construction in this case the right to file a claim for indemnification, “does not constitute a vested right.” Therefore, Venus Construction’s right to file a claim for indemnification did not vest until a judgment was entered against Venus Construction, and thus the peremptive period has run for Venus Construction to file a claim for indemnification against the subcontractor.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Being able to be involved in the design and building of a new home can be an exciting experience. But there is nothing more special than seeing the home’s construction completed and fully furnished. After all of this, there can be nothing more upsetting than the discovery that the new home has building defects. Imagine settling in and noticing some part of the home’s structure misshapen or cracking at the seams of walls or floors, or perhaps even a foundation or structural supports that have improperly settled or misplaced. The focus of Charles Ebinger, et ux. v. Venus Construction Corporation, et al. focuses on the time period in which a claim for these damages can be brought against a contractor and the time period in which a contractor may bring an indemnifying action against a subcontractor.

The crux of this follows what happens from the time that the building has completed through when litigation is brought against the contractor, and in the event the contractor is found liable, then the indemnification proceeding the contractor would most likely bring against any subcontractor who may be at fault for the imperfect work. However, this is complicated by taking into account the statute of limitations that exists to bring about such a suit. And this is further complicated when taking into account the revisions of the statute of limitations by the legislature.

In short, and to be clear, ‘to indemnify’ means to compensate for damages or losses sustained and to pay for expenses incurred through the litigation. Thus, in the event that a contractor, one who oversees and employs the various subcontractors for a specific job, is found to be liable for damage that exists in a specific construction unit, then, if it is through no fault of the contractor, but is the fault of one of the subcontractors and his or her oversight of his or her unit and specific job, then the contractor may seek to have his or her losses, in this case through litigation and a damages award against the contractor, paid by, or reimbursed by, the subcontractor.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design