Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog

Presumption of Negligence in Rear-End Accidents Does Not Always Lead To Summary Judgment Victory

Published on: October 20, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

car_racing_crash_accident-scaled Under Louisiana law, there is a presumption the driver of a car that rear-ends another car acted negligently. However, this presumption of negligence can be overcome in certain situations, such as if the driver of the vehicle that was rear-end shifted lanes soon before the accident.

While Tammy Bloxham was stopped at a red light in her car, she was hit from behind by Andy Gibbs Jr. At the time of the accident, Gibbs was driving a tractor-trailer owned by 31 Energy. Bloxham filed a lawsuit against Gibs, 31 Energy, and 31 Energy’s insurer. Bloxham argued 31 Energy had been negligent in hiring Gibbs and not inspecting its vehicle’s brakes. The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, claiming Bloxham had not reported this claim in her pending bankruptcy. Bloxham also filed a summary judgment motion, claiming Gibbs was liable under La. R.S. 32:81 A and the presumed negligence of the driver of a following vehicle who hits the rear of another vehicle.

The trial court granted Bloxham’s summary judgment motion given the presumption that a following driver who rear ends another vehicle is negligent. The court held this applied even if Bloxham had changed lanes immediately before the accident. The defendants filed an appeal.

Can an Independent Contractor collect Workers’ Compensation Benefits?

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

labor_farmer_village_work The distinction between independent contractors and employees has always been something of a balancing test. This distinction becomes vital in workers’ compensation issues, where employees generally enjoy peace of mind with workers’ compensation in the event of an injury, whereas independent contractors usually do not. But are there some cases where an independent contractor can collect workers’ compensation benefits? The answer to this question is illustrated in the following appeal from the New Orleans Office of Workers’ Compensation.

Federico Espinoza Martinez and four others were hired by Jaroslov Rames to lower a washer/dryer combination unit to the first floor of an apartment building. During the lowering of the unit, Mr. Martinez received a laceration on his hand when one of the ropes used snapped. Despite a broken rope and cut hand, Mr. Martinez and the others completed the job. Afterward, Mr. Rames drove Mr. Martinez to the emergency room, paying five hundred dollars to ensure proper treatment was administered. Mr. Martinez later attempted to collect his pay from Mr. Rames. Mr. Rames informed him that he had deducted the five-hundred-dollar emergency room fee from Mr. Martinez’s check and planned to deduct the remainder of the hospital fee from his future earnings.

Mr. Martinez filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits he believed Mr. Rames owed him. The issue was heard by the Office of Workers’ Compensation (henceforth “OWC”), and it was found that Mr. Martinez was not an employe of Mr. Rames, but rather an independent contractor. Benefits were denied based on this finding. Mr. Martinez appealed, maintaining that the OWC failed to apply the manual labor exception outlined in La. R.S. 23:1021(7). The OWC found the manual labor exception did not apply to the set of facts, denying benefits again for Mr. Martinez.

Smoking Or Radioactive Material? Summary Judgment Reversed Given Factual Disputes On Causation

Published on: October 4, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

nuclear_power_plant_landscape-scaled Everyone knows someone who has been affected by cancer. Despite being a widespread disease, there is a lot we still do not know about cancer. One area where a lot is still unknown is causation. For example, lung cancer can be caused by a variety of things, including smoking and exposure to radioactive materials. These multiple potential causes can present challenging issues in lawsuits where an individual developed cancer. An medical expert is one possible way to address potential causation issues.

Riley Hickman filed lawsuits against multiple oil and gas companies, claiming he had developed lung cancer from exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material while working to clean oilfield pipes. He claimed naturally occurring radioactive material deposits inside oil pipes and have to be cleaned out, which releases radioactive dust. One of the companies Hickman sued, Shell Oil, filed a summary judgment motion. Shell claimed Hickman could not establish his exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material had caused his lung cancer, in part because Hickman had smoked his entire life. Shell argued Hickman had gotten lung cancer from smoking, not from exposure to naturally occurring radioactive material.

The trial court granted Shell’s summary judgment motion and dismissed Hickman’s claims against Shell. Shell also claimed to have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Hickman’s expert witness, but there was no record of the motion and the court never ruled on it.

Is It Possible To Modify a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s Judgment?

Published on: October 3, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

worker_shoes_shoes_work-1-scaled If you have been injured on the job, you might be entitled to workers’ compensation. In order to receive compensation, there are a number of procedural requirements with which you must comply.

Elaine Rodrigue worked as a paralegal for the school board in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. While working, she tripped over a rug and had to have surgery. When she returned to work from her surgery, she was transferred to work at a metal building. While working there, Rodrigue was exposed to noxious odors and forms. After she left her job, her symptoms from the exposure continued to get worse.

Rodrigue filed a workers’ compensation claim against the school board. The Workers’ Compensation Judge ruled in favor of Rodrigue, finding her exposure to the noxious odors and fumes at work had caused her medical issues, so she could recover for her related medical expenses. The judgment included twenty items from Rodrigue’s doctor’s prescriptions that were a reasonable and necessary part of her treatment.

Is Delaying An Examination Under Oath A Lack of Cooperation In A Homeowner’s Insurance Claim?

Published on: October 2, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

house_architecture_brick_door_0-scaled In order to recover under a homeowner’s policy, there are many requirements with which you must comply. One common requirement is providing the insurer with requested documentation and undergoing an examination under oath where the insurer can ask questions and gather information relevant to the claim. What happens if a homeowner delays undergoing an examination under oath?

Jesse and Dena McCartney’s house was destroyed in a fire. They filed a claim with Shelter Mutual Insurance, who issued their homeowner’s policy. Their policy required that they cooperate with the insurer, including answering questions under oath and submitting proof of loss. The McCartneys filed a lawsuit against Shelter for refusing to pay them anything.

Shelter filed a summary judgment motion, arguing the McCartneys had not provided the required requested information and had refused to submit to an examination under oath. The McCartneys claimed they had not refused to cooperate with the investigation and had submitted documentation and recorded statements. They also claimed they had only postponed the examination under oath, not refused it. They noted Shelter had requested an examination under oath more than sixty days after the McCartneys submitted their proof of loss, which was after the time by when Shelter was required to pay them or make a settlement offer. The trial court granted Shelter’s summary judgment motion, explaining the McCartneys had voided their policy by not submitting to an examination under oath. The McCartneys filed an appeal.

No Hostile Work Environment Where Employer Took Remedial Actions

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

usps_mcveytown_pa_17051-scaled No one should have to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. If you are dealing with sexual harassment at work and you report it to your employer, you hope they will act on your report. How do actions taken by your employer affect your ability to recover for sexual harassment in court?

Shelita Tucker worked for UPS in Port Allen, Louisiana for three years. One of the subordinates she managed was Larry McCaleb. Tucker claimed McCaleb sexually harassed her for about two years. His alleged sexual harassment involved inappropriate touching. Soon after the incident with the inappropriate touching, Tucker reported what had happened to the business manager. McCaleb was taken out of service while the investigation was ongoing. The next day, Tucker filed a complaint with the UPS Compliance Line. She subsequently also filed a report with the local police department.

The next week, Tucker was on a scheduled vacation. While she as on vacation, UPS investigated the matter and suspended McCaleb. When McCaleb was allowed to return to work, UPS took corrective action including meeting with McCaleb, counseling him about proper behavior and relevant policies, and prohibiting him from going near Tucker. McCaleb was also convicted of battery and sentenced to 90-days in jail. Tucker reported McCaleb never talked to or touched her again. The one-time McCaleb entered her work area, she reported it and UPS addressed it. Tucker claimed she still felt unsafe at work because McCaleb also worked at the facility. However, she said she was still about to perform her job. She claimed McCaleb would stare at her as she walked in or out of work.

Property Owners Barred From Interfering With Servitude

Published on: September 30, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

private_property_sign_gate-scaled One of the joys of owning property is dealing with potential property disputes. Such disputes can get especially complicated when they involve old surveys and records and promises from prior owners. This case illustrates the importance of doing due diligence before purchasing property so you understand which of your neighbors might have the right to use part of your property.

This lawsuit involved multiple parcels of land located in Tangiphoa Parish, Louisiana. The Arnolds had previously owned all of the property at-issue. There was a right of way and road constructed by the early 1960s, which was marked by signs. An apparent servitude is perceivable by signs or constructions such as a roadway. See La. C.C. art. 707. The Arnold family and their tenants had regularly used the route since then.

The Aikmans, who owned some of the at-issue land, filed a lawsuit against the Naramores, who owned another parcel of land. The Aikmans claimed there was no servitude, so the Naramores could not use the road to access their property. At trial, there were over twenty witnesses, including multiple experts. The parties also presented exhibits, surveys, and maps. The trial court held the Aikmans could not interfere with the use of the passage, relying on La. C.C. art. 741, which governs the creation of servitudes. The Aikmans filed an appeal.

Failure To Investigate Does Not Suspend Time Requirement For Filing Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Published on: September 29, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

uranium_radioactive_nuclear_rays-scaled We have all heard the saying “time is of the essence.” This is especially true when you are filing a lawsuit. If you do not comply with the statutory requirements for how long you have to file a lawsuit, a court will be unable to hear your claim. Although certain exceptions apply that extend your timeline for filing a lawsuit, there are strict evidentiary requirements for these exceptions to apply.

Julius Lennie worked for a Company that cleaned pipes in oilfields. The cleaning process allegedly involved the emission of naturally occurring radioactive material. About fifteen years after retiring, Lennie was diagnosed with lung cancer and died shortly thereafter. Four years later, his surviving spouse and children filed a lawsuit against various companies for whom Lennie had cleaned their oilfield pipes. They claimed Lennie had been exposed to harmful levels of radiation, causing his lung cancer and death. They claimed the companies had been aware of the dangers of the radioactive materials but did not warn Lennie about the dangerous or take adequate precautions. The Lennies claimed they were not aware about the radiation exposure until less than a year before they filed their lawsuit, when one of Lennie’s children read about it in the newspaper and they met with an attorney. The Lennies claimed the companies had actively concealed the existence of the naturally occurring radioactive materials.

Because the Lennies filed their lawsuit over a year after Lennie’s death, the defendants filed peremptory exceptions of prescription, claiming they were required to have filed their lawsuit within one year of his death, pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2315.1. The Lennies claimed they did not have any actual or constructive knowledge of their claims until less than a year before they filed the lawsuit, because the companies had concealed it. The trial court granted the defendants’ peremptory exceptions of prescription, finding there was not sufficient evidence the defendants had concealed the existence of the naturally occurring radioactive material such that the Lennies did not have knowledge of their possible claims. The Lennies appealed.

Louisiana Jury Did Not Err In Apportioning Fault For Car Crash

Published on: September 8, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

rim_tire_wheel_round-scaled In the heart of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, tragedy struck on Interstate 10 as a routine drive turned fatal. Arthur Huguley, behind the wheel of a tractor-trailer for AAA Cooper Transportation, found himself in a situation that would forever alter the lives of those involved. A blown-out tire, a series of events, and a wrongful death lawsuit brought forth by Curley Mouton’s surviving family members set the stage for a courtroom drama that unfolded with unexpected twists. In the end, a jury assigned fault, but the defendants, Huguley, AAA Cooper, and their insurer, were not ready to accept the verdict without a fight. This article explores the intricacies of their appeal, shedding light on the compelling arguments presented and the complexities of apportioning fault in a tragic accident.

Arthur Huguley was driving a tractor-trailer in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, on Interstate 10 while working for AAA Cooper Transportation (“AAA Cooper”). Huguley heard a bang and worried he might have blown out a tire. While performing a maneuver to see if he had blown out a tire, the tire that had blown out came apart and flew into the air. Curley Mouton was driving in a truck behind Huguley when debris from the tire started flying through the air. The debris hit Mouton’s truck, causing him to hit a guardrail, flip over, and crash. Mouton died in the crash.

Mouton’s surviving spouse and son filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Huguley, AAA Cooper, and their insurer. A jury found in favor of Mouton’s family and assigned 10% fault to Huguley and 90% to AAA Cooper for putting a defective tire on its truck. The defendants appealed, claiming the jury had erred in its ruling.

Expert Witnesses Key To Establishing Damages From Industrial Fire

Published on: September 7, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

fire_orange_emergency_burning-scaled In a world where news headlines often feature calamitous industrial disasters, it’s hardly surprising to find legal battles trailing in their wake. The following case involves multiple individuals who filed lawsuits against the owner of a facility in Iberia Parish, Louisiana, that had a large fire.

A fire at a facility owned by Multi-Chem Group caused multiple explosions, which released chemicals. Following the fire and explosions, multiple people filed lawsuits against Multi-Chem and others, alleging they had been exposed to hazardous materials. The multiple lawsuits were consolidated into three groups based on the distance the injured party was located from the fire source. At trial, the parties presented expert testimony about whether the plaintiffs were exposed to hazardous materials from the Multi-Chem fire and if they suffered damages due to the exposure. The trial court held that the plaintiffs had established exposure and awarded damages to the three groups. The damages included medical expenses, general damages, and mental anguish related to the fear of developing cancer. Multi-Chem filed an appeal.

On appeal, Multi-Chem argued the trial court erred in admitting and excluding certain expert testimony. Article 702 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence governs expert testimony. At trial, the trial court evaluated the expert witnesses’ relevant credentials when deciding whether and to what extent to credit the expert witnesses’ testimony. The court also analyzed the underlying data the experts used as the basis for their opinions. Therefore, the appellate court found Multi-Chem’s argument that the trial court erred in which expert testimony it admitted and excluded lacked merit.