119 So. 3d 69
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hurricane Katrina 2005 insured Plaintiffs sue Citizens in 2009 for delay in loss adjustment and underpayment, seeking policy amounts, penalties, and fees.
- Plaintiffs claimed they were putative members who opted out of a class action to pursue claims individually.
- Citizens filed exception of prescription, relying on Lester v. Exxon Mobil (later overruled).
- Act 802 extended Katrina damages prescriptive period to August 30, 2007; petition filed July 22, 2009 appears prescribed on its face.
- Plaintiffs argued La. C.C.P. art. 596 suspends prescription where timely class actions exist, listing several putative classes including Road Home litigation.
- Trial court granted prescription exception; this court reviews de novo for legal error and applies correct law; remand for amendment allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is prescribed on its face | Plaintiffs claim lack of non-prescriptive proof; they rely on suspensions from class actions. | Lester/Duckworth and Art. 596 show petition is prescribed. | Yes; petition prescribed on its face. |
| Whether Art. 596 suspends prescription due to putative class actions | Putative class actions suspend prescription for all members. | Petition failed to describe or define a class; no timely class membership shown. | Suspension not established given lack of described class membership. |
| Whether plaintiffs proved they were members of timely filed class actions | Plaintiffs were putative members who opted out of several named actions. | Petition lacked class definitions; cannot prove membership. | Plaintiffs failed to prove membership in any timely-class action. |
| Whether the court erred by relying on Lester v. Exxon Mobil | Lester was overruled by Duckworth; law requires current standard. | Court should apply Duckworth; Lester is outdated. | Court’s reliance on Lester was legal error; correct law governs. |
| Whether amendment should be allowed to allege non-prescription facts | Amendment could establish non-prescription claims. | If prescribed, amendment may not salvage claim. | Remand with 21-day window to amend and supplement petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 62 So.3d 721 (La. 2011) (prescription and class-action tolling principles)
- Duckworth v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., - So.3d - (La. 2012) (overruled Lester; clarified prescriptive standards)
- Lila, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 994 So.2d 139 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (extended Katrina prescriptive period; class actions interplay)
- Quinn v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 118 So.3d 1011 (La. 2012) (burden-shifting in prescriptive analysis; Art. 596)
- Williams v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company, 115 So.3d 27 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2013) (evidentiary standard in prescription when no evidence presented)
- Harris v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company, 106 So.3d 207 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (treatment of class-action tolling and prescription)