Cupp Drug Store, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana, Inc.
161 So. 3d 860
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cupp sued Blue Cross for LUTPA-based damages after Blue Cross investigator Cowart disclosed concerns to Walgreens about Cupp’s sale to Walgreens, alleging unfair trade practices.
- The jury found Cowart’s disclosures offended public policy and were unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious, awarding damages and attorney fees to Cupp.
- Blue Cross appealed the LUTPA verdict, challenging the damages, and the supplemental judgment awarding attorney fees and costs.
- There was significant conduct surrounding a potential Walgreens acquisition of Cupp, including internal memos, BOP prosecutions, and communications among Blue Cross, ESI, and Walgreens personnel.
- Blue Cross sought to reverse or limit the LUTPA findings, while Cupp sought higher damages and fees on appeal.
- The district court subsequently entered a supplemental judgment for costs and attorney fees, which the appellate court later vacated for lack of jurisdiction over those damages after suspensive appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cowart’s disclosure violated LUTPA. | Cupp argues Cowart’s actions were unethical and injurious under LUTPA. | Blue Cross contends the disclosure did not offend LUTPA public policy or constitute unfair practice. | LUTPA violated; Cowart’s conduct upheld as unethical and injurious. |
| Whether the damages award of $185,000 was proper. | Cupp contends damages should reflect the November sale terms and higher potential value. | Blue Cross argues the record supports the $185,000 as justified damages. | Damage award affirmed as not clearly wrong. |
| Whether the supplemental attorney fees/costs judgment was proper. | Cupp seeks attorney fees for the LUTPA action on appeal. | Blue Cross argues the district court lacked authority to amend final judgments for fees via a supplemental judgment. | Supplemental judgment vacated; remanded for attorney fees and costs; $5,000 awarded for this appeal. |
| Whether the causation finding (Cowart’s disclosure causing Walgreens to back out) was supported. | Cupp contends Cowart’s disclosure caused Walgreens to back away from the November deal. | Blue Cross contends no causal link supported by the record. | No manifest error; Cowart’s call caused Walgreens to back off the deal. |
| Whether the award of attorney fees on appeal is proper given suspensive appeal timing. | Cupp seeks appellate fees related to defending LUTPA verdict. | Blue Cross asserts lack of appellate-jurisdiction to award such fees. | Fees for this appeal awarded; overall remand for ongoing fees and costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheramie Servs. Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod. Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA range is narrow; requires public-policy offense)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (manifest-error standard for factual review)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (credibility and inferences should not be disturbed on review)
- Turner v. Purina Mills Inc., 989 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1993) (permissible business judgments and moral boundaries in LUTPA contexts)
- Johnson Const. Co. v. Shaffer, 87 So.3d 203 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2012) (case-by-case LUTPA definition, unethical conduct elements)