Breaux v. Cozy Cottages, LLC
151 So. 3d 183
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dispute over title to Lot 8, Edmond Doiron Subdivision, Cameron Parish: Samuel R. Breaux II (Plaintiff) sued Cozy Cottages, LLC claiming ownership after a 2005 purchase; Cozy Cottages claims title from a different chain and purchased the property in 2008.
- Underlying contested history: Antoine Doiron died testate in 1952 granting his widow a life usufruct and remainder to his brothers and sisters; siblings did not formally participate in the succession record.
- Tax-sale notices in 1988–89 were mailed in the name of the Viola Doiron Estate and the tax-sale purchaser was Lawrence Marsh (stepson of Mary Viola); Marsh’s successors later conveyed to Plaintiff.
- Cozy Cottages purchased title insurance from Chicago Title in 2008 and added third-party claims against Chicago Title for defense/damages related to the title dispute.
- Trial court denied cross-motions for summary judgment; Chicago Title and Cozy Cottages sought supervisory review (writs). The appellate court consolidated the writs and denied them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of tax sales — whether notice to Antoine Doiron’s siblings (naked owners) was required | Tax sales are absolute nullities if siblings were naked owners and did not receive notice; so Plaintiff’s claim fails | Siblings were naked owners entitled to notice; absence of notice voids the sales and defeats Plaintiff | Genuine issue of material fact exists whether siblings accepted/renounced succession; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Effect of succession law/prescription on notice entitlement | Plaintiff contends heirs did not accept succession so were not naked owners; tax sale valid | Defendants point to possibility of tacit/formal acceptance by heirs which would require notice | Determination depends on historical acceptance/renunciation facts (subjective intent); cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Insurer’s cooperation clause — whether Cozy Cottages’ hiring new counsel and opposing a settlement terminated Chicago Title’s obligations | Chicago Title: insured’s change of counsel and refusal to accept a proposed settlement was non-cooperation that materially prejudiced insurer, terminating coverage | Cozy Cottages: assumed and managed its defense due to conflict; disagreement with settlement is not non-cooperation; insurer hasn’t shown material prejudice | Insurer failed to prove material, prejudicial non-cooperation; summary judgment for insurer on termination was improper |
| Duty to defend under title policy — whether Chicago Title had to defend Cozy Cottages in litigation | Plaintiff: (implicit) insurer must honor coverage duties while claims unresolved | Chicago Title: policy permits tendering limits or settling with third parties instead of defending; insurer had purportedly elected to settle | Duty to defend is triggered if pleadings disclose any possibility of liability and insurer had not cured title or paid/tendered limits; therefore insurer still had duty and summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) (notice to property owners required by Due Process for tax sale validity)
- Quantum Res. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Pirate Lake Oil Corp., 112 So.3d 209 (La. 2013) (tax-sale and due-process notice issues; limits of retroactive relief against accrued prescription)
- Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 907 So.2d 37 (La. 2005) (duty to defend broader than duty to indemnify; pleadings showing a possibility of liability trigger defense duty)
- Steptore v. Masco Constr. Co., 643 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (analysis of duty to defend scope)
- Freyou v. Marquette Cas. Co., 149 So.2d 697 (La. Ct. App.) (insurer must show material prejudice from insured’s non-cooperation to avoid liability)