Carpenter v. Foremost Signature Insurance
2012 La. App. LEXIS 229
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Winn Parish road crew severed the Carpenters’ underground water and phone lines on Ed Carpenter Road; Calvin repaired the water line but not the phone line.
- Fire damaged the Carpenters’ trailer on August 26 due to electrical problems unrelated to the road crew; delayed emergency response because of low water pressure and communication issues.
- Foremost Signature insured the Carpenters and intervened after settling the claim for $55,047.55.
- Police Jury moved for summary judgment, conceding the lines were severed but arguing no liability for the fire and that it fulfilled its duties to the Carpenters.
- District court granted summary judgment, finding the jury breached by cutting the lines but not legally causing the fire; Carpenters appealed.
- On appeal, court recognized a duty not to interrupt water/phone service but required legal causation (scope of protection) for liability; found damages from the fire too speculative to be foreseeably linked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to avoid interrupting service | Carpenters: jury owed duty not to interrupt water/phone service. | Police Jury: breached duty but not legally liable for fire consequences. | Yes, duty existed; breach occurred, but no liability for remote damages. |
| Causation in law (scope of protection) | Carpenters: interruption caused/fire damage foreseeably connected. | Police Jury: no legal connection between breach and fire damages. | No legal cause; damages not reasonably foreseeable; no duty-risk liability. |
| Foreseeability and proximate cause standard applicability | Carpenters: intervening factors should not absolve liability. | Police Jury: policy limits on liability for remote consequences. | Damages too speculative; not within scope of duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 923 So.2d 627 (La. 2006) (duty-risk analysis framework)
- PPG Industries Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058 (La. 1984) (no easy association between negligent conduct and indirect loss)
- Mang v. Palmer, 557 So.2d 973 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989) (no liability for consequences of service interruption)
- Antoine v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 374 So.2d 117 (La.App. 4 Cir.1979) (no duty to interrupt busy signal for life-threatening need)
- Davis v. Cindy Preferred, 743 So.2d 772 (La.App. 4 Cir.1999) (lack of electricity not a legal cause of fatal fire)
- Carrier v. City of Amite, 50 So.3d 1247 (La. 2010) (scope of duty determined by policy and foreseeability)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (policy-based limits on liability for risks)
- Sensebe v. Canal Indem. Co., 58 So.3d 441 (La. 2011) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)