144 So. 3d 75
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Dr. Chapital purchased rental property in New Orleans and secured dwelling coverage through Kelleher after Katrina.
- Policy renewal occurred annually from 2006–2011; Citizens renewed the policy post-Katrina.
- In 2011, Chapital reported theft and fire claims; Citizens denied coverage for both, citing vacancy after Katrina.
- Kelleher and Citizens moved for summary judgment and peremption; trial court granted, dismissing claims with prejudice.
- Chapital appeals, asserting negligence, breach, fraud, unjust enrichment; questions include peremption, vacancy clause waiver, judicial confession, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
- The appellate court reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for further proceedings, notably regarding unjust enrichment against Citizens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremption applies to claims against Kelleher | Chapital argues peremption should not bar claims tied to post-Katrina acts. | Kelleher contends one-year/three-year peremption bars all claims. | Peremption bars Chapital’s agent-negligence claims against Kelleher. |
| Waiver of the 60-day vacancy clause | Affidavit claims waiver of vacancy clause due to Katrina repairs delay. | Waiver must be in writing per policy; oral waiver invalid. | Waiver not proven; contractual denial upheld; but unjust enrichment claim survives against Citizens on remand. |
| Judicial confession and fraud | Citizens’ and Kelleher’s renewal conduct constitutes judicial confession/fraud. | No judicial confession or fraudulent misrepresentation proven. | No judicial confession or fraud established. |
| Unjust enrichment against Citizens | Premiums paid 2006–2011 without coverage unjustly enriched Citizens. | Peremption and lack of justification defeat unjust enrichment; alternative remedies exist. | Remand on unjust enrichment against Citizens; trial court erred in dismissing those claims. |
| Unjust enrichment against Kelleher | Unjust enrichment theory should revive otherwise prescribed claims against Kelleher. | Peremption bars unjust enrichment against Kelleher. | Unjust enrichment claim against Kelleher barred by peremption; but Citizens’ unjust enrichment claim preserved for remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Isidore Newman School v. J. Everett Eaves, Inc., 42 So.3d 352 (La. 2010) (insured bears responsibility to read policy; agent duty limited to reasonable diligence)
- Seruntine v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 42 So.3d 968 (La. 2010) (peremption framework and discovery timelines for insurance-related actions)
- Halmekangas v. ANPAC Louisiana Ins. Co., 95 So.3d 1192 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (insurer-liability in derivative claims; unit denial on peremption)
- Vagelos v. Abramson, 126 So.3d 639 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2013) (unjust enrichment not available to revive prescribed claims)
- Stepore v. Masco Const. Co., Inc., 643 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (waiver requires knowledge, right, and conduct inconsistent with enforcing it)