270 So. 3d 655
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- ExPert contracted Techcrane to build and install a marine pedestal crane (expected 100-ton capacity via eight-part reeving); installation completed in 2013.
- Soon after installation ExPert experienced mechanical problems (popping noises, bridle sheave twisting, hydraulic leaks) and learned the crane could not be fitted with eight-part reeving; lifting rating was reduced.
- Southern Crane inspected the crane in October 2013 and issued a report documenting numerous defects, recommending further investigation of the popping noise and other defects. ExPert received that report in October 2013.
- Continued problems led ExPert to obtain an Oil States engineering report in October 2016 finding the crane improperly constructed and unfit for service; ExPert replaced the crane rather than spend ~$1M to repair the slewing bearing.
- ExPert sued Techcrane on March 20, 2017 asserting redhibition and other claims (breach of contract, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty, etc.). Techcrane pleaded prescription and no cause of action (arguing LPLA precludes other claims).
- Trial court granted Techcrane's exception of prescription as to redhibition, pretermitted ruling on exception of no cause of action, and dismissed the petition with prejudice; the court of appeal affirmed prescription as to redhibition, reversed the dismissal of the petition, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ExPert's redhibition claim was prescribed | ExPert: did not know defect existed until Oil States report in Apr 2016 (within 1 year of suit) | Techcrane: constructive/actual knowledge arose in 2013 (Southern Crane report; inability to fit eight-part line) | Court: Prescription accrued at latest in 2013 upon Southern Crane report and knowledge crane couldn’t meet 100-ton capacity; redhibition dismissed as prescribed |
| Whether remaining claims are barred by the LPLA such that petition fails to state a cause of action | ExPert: LPLA does not apply; alternative common-law claims survive | Techcrane: LPLA and redhibition are exclusive remedies, other claims fail as a matter of law | Court: Trial court pretermitted this issue; appellate court declines to decide it for first time on appeal and remands for further proceedings |
| Whether trial court properly dismissed entire petition with prejudice after sustaining prescription on redhibition | ExPert: dismissal was improper because only redhibition was prescribed and other claims remain | Techcrane: (implicitly) dismissal appropriate if all claims fail | Court: Reversed dismissal with prejudice; only redhibition was prescribed, other claims remain pending for trial court to address |
| Standard of review for prescription exception where evidence introduced | ExPert: N/A (argued facts) | Techcrane: N/A | Court: Because evidence introduced, manifest-error standard applies to factual findings; legal questions (no cause of action) reviewed de novo on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Calloway v. Lobrano, 218 So.3d 644 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2017) (burden shifts when prescription appears on face of petition; evidence may be considered)
- Moore v. Chevron USA, 222 So.3d 51 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2017) (constructive knowledge begins prescription when notice is enough to excite attention and call for inquiry)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (explaining acquisition of sufficient information that, if pursued, leads to true condition of things)
- Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (definition of constructive knowledge for prescription)
- Babineaux v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 927 So.2d 1121 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (prescription commences when inquiry should be made, not when inquiry yields proof)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for manifest error review of factual findings)
- AstraZeneca AB, 249 So.3d 38 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (standards for exception of no cause of action)