187 So. 3d 65
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- BBCL Enterprises owned a hotel and restaurant complex and procured a builder’s risk policy through Marcus Eagan/Eagan Insurance (Eagan) with American Alternative Insurance Corp. (AAIC).
- BBCL sued AAIC, Eagan, and another agent after vandals stole copper from the property; BBCL alleged the restaurant was not included in coverage and the claim was misadjusted.
- Eagan moved for summary judgment arguing BBCL breached a protective devices schedule and therefore Eagan was not liable for failing to include the restaurant; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Eagan with prejudice.
- After dismissal, BBCL filed supplemental/amended petitions asserting Eagan and AAIC had charged "grossly excessive premiums," and later added facts and claims through additional amendments.
- Eagan filed a peremptory exception asserting res judicata (and peremption/prescription); the trial court granted the res judicata exception, denied BBCL’s motion for new trial, and BBCL appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BBCL’s later excessive-premium claims are barred by res judicata | Excessive-premium claim is a distinct cause of action and should not be precluded | Second claim arises from same transaction (procurement of insurance) and was known before the prior judgment | Granted: res judicata applies; claims barred |
| Whether the excessive-premium claim existed at time of the first judgment | BBCL contends it discovered the premium issue only shortly before summary judgment and thus it was not a proper basis for dismissal | Eagan points out BBCL admitted it learned of the premium issue before the summary judgment hearing and included it in opposition | Held that the claim existed at the time of the first judgment (BBCL had knowledge and raised it) |
| Whether exceptional circumstances justify relief from res judicata (motion for new trial) | BBCL argues exceptional circumstances and public policy against unfair/deceptive premium-setting justify a new trial | Eagan argues no extraordinary conduct prevented BBCL from litigating the premium claim earlier | Denied: no exceptional circumstances; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether peremption/prescription should bar the claim | BBCL did not successfully argue these; primary decision focused on res judicata | Eagan asserted peremption and prescription as alternative grounds | Court pretermitted discussion of peremption/prescription because res judicata was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 43 So.3d 207 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (standard of review for res judicata exception)
- Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Thomas, 113 So.3d 355 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (manifest error standard for factual issues on res judicata)
- Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Ref. Co., 666 So.2d 624 (La. 1996) (overview of res judicata doctrine)
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (presumption of correctness in civilian res judicata concept)
- Bd. of Sup’rs of Louisiana State Univ. v. Dixie Brewing Co., Inc., 154 So.3d 683 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (stricti juris application of res judicata)
- Igbokwe v. Moser, 116 So.3d 727 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (five-element test for res judicata application)
- Stall v. Bakery Condo. Ass’n, 66 So.3d 1112 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (similar facts where later claim arose from same insurance-related transaction)
- Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 158 So.3d 761 (La. 2014) (res judicata prohibits relitigation of matters arising from same transaction)
- Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Darver, L.L.C. v. Burch, 163 So.3d 201 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (res judicata principles applied)
- Glass v. Alton Ochsner Med. Found., 907 So.2d 782 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (res judicata and related issues)
- Spear v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 640 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1999) (standard for exceptional circumstances to avoid res judicata)
- Brouillard v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 657 So.2d 231 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (insurer’s misconduct—late production of policy—can negate res judicata)