Duckworth v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
125 So. 3d 1057
La.2012Background
- Two Katrina-related insurance disputes (Duckworth and Smith) filed in Louisiana district courts in 2008; plaintiffs claimed damages and bad-faith penalties under Farm Bureau policies.
- Both suits argued that prescription was suspended under La. C.C.P. art. 596 due to pending class actions (Vinturella and Road Home/AAA-related actions) involving putative class members.
- Lower courts sustained prescription exceptions, deeming independent suits pre-certification as opt-out and forfeiture of the 596 suspension.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on Lester and Katz to hold that filing an independent suit before class certification defeats the tolling.
- Weiner, J. grants certiorari to decide whether a putative class member who files an independent suit before certification loses the 596 suspension.
- The court overrules Lester and holds that 596 tolling applies to putative class members even if they file independent actions prior to certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 596 tolling applies to putative class members who file independent suits before certification. | Duckworth/Smith rely on 596 to suspend prescription as putative class members. | Farm Bureau argues filing independent suits constitutes opt-out, forfeiting 596 tolling (Lester/Katz line). | Yes; 596 tolling applies to putative class members regardless of pre-certification independent suits. |
| Whether filing an independent suit before class certification constitutes an opt-out under Louisiana law. | Putative class members are entitled to tolling until certification; filing suits does not remove them from the class. | Such filing equates to opting out, triggering forfeiture of tolling. | No; filing an independent suit does not constitute opt-out under 1997 revisions to class actions. |
| Whether 596 should be interpreted strictly vs. to align with legislative language and purpose. | Plain language supports tolling for all members as defined, until membership ceases. | Appellate use of federal tolling concepts misreads statute; would create absurd results. | Article 596 should be read to extend tolling to those defined as class members until membership ceases. |
| What is the proper source of law for interpreting 596 (Louisiana statutes vs. federal tolling cases). | Louisiana Code governs; legislative text controls. | Federal cases offer persuasive guidance on tolling. | Louisiana statutes govern; 596 tolling applies as interpreted by Louisiana authoritative text. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. Allstate Ins. Co., 917 So.2d 443 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (discussion of opt-out effect and tolling under 596; majority held class action tolling not altered by class filing)
- Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 62 So.3d 721 (La. 2011) (rejected Katz’s strict contractual tolling; held 596 tolling applies with legislative basis)
- Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 42 So.3d 1071 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (pre-certification independent action as opt-out; later overruled)
- Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131 (La.1977) (notice requirements for class actions; early due process concerns)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (Supreme Court 1974) (tolling rationale in federal class actions; cited but Louisiana law diverges)