270 So. 3d 655
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- ExPert contracted with Techcrane to build and install a pedestal-mounted marine crane in 2013 that was to handle an eight-part line and lift 100 tons; Techcrane manufactured the crane.
- After installation ExPert experienced persistent mechanical problems (popping noises, twisted bridle sheaves, hydraulic failures) and learned the crane could not accept the eight-part reeving; attempted retrofit reduced rating to 75 tons.
- Southern Crane inspected the crane in October 2013 and produced a report identifying multiple defects, installation deviations from Techcrane’s proposal, and recommended further investigation of the popping noise in the slewing gear/bearings. ExPert received that report in October 2013.
- Oil States performed an engineering inspection in October 2016, concluded the crane was improperly constructed and unfit for service (roller-bearing and structural weld defects), and recommended major repairs; ExPert replaced the crane instead of spending roughly $1 million on repairs.
- ExPert sued Techcrane on March 20, 2017 asserting redhibition, breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, negligence, and unfair trade practices. Techcrane raised exceptions of prescription and no cause of action.
- The trial court granted Techcrane’s exception of prescription as to redhibition, pretermitted ruling on the no-cause-of-action exception, and dismissed the petition with prejudice; on appeal the court affirmed prescription as to redhibition, reversed the dismissal of the entire petition, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ExPert's redhibition claim was prescribed (1-year prescriptive period against manufacturer) | ExPert argued it did not know the crane was defective/unfit for its intended use until Oil States’ April 2016 report, so suit filed March 2017 was timely | Techcrane argued ExPert had actual/constructive knowledge of defects by October 2013 (Southern Crane report and inability to fit eight-part line), so redhibition prescribed before suit | Court held ExPert had constructive (and actual on some points) knowledge by 2013; redhibition claim prescribed — affirmed |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed the entire petition when it pretermitted ruling on Techcrane’s exception of no cause of action | ExPert argued dismissal with prejudice was improper because only the redhibition claim was prescribed and other claims remained viable and timely | Techcrane argued LPLA and redhibition were the exclusive remedies and other claims failed as a matter of law (exception of no cause of action) | Court found the trial court erred to dismiss the whole petition without deciding the no-cause-of-action exception; reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on remaining claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobart v. State through Dep't of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for reviewing factual findings for manifest error)
- Moore v. Chevron USA, 222 So.3d 51 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (constructive knowledge and when prescription begins under redhibition)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (prescription begins when there is sufficient information that, if pursued, will lead to the true condition of things)
- State, by and through Caldwell v. AstraZeneca AB, 249 So.3d 38 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (standards for exception of no cause of action)
- Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 595 So.2d 1123 (La. 1992) (multiple minor defects can collectively support a redhibitory action)