202 So. 3d 1160
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- February 14, 2011: tractor-trailer collision in Olympus, Washington; April Celestine injured; other driver Fowler was operating a truck insured by Canal via OM Logistics.
- December 4, 2013: Gallagher Bassett (subrogee) sued in Louisiana seeking reimbursement for amounts paid to Celestine under an occupational accident policy.
- February 13, 2014: Celestine filed a separate suit in Washington (where accident occurred); that Washington suit was dismissed with prejudice for failure to timely serve defendants.
- July 10, 2014: Celestine filed an answer and cross-claim in the Louisiana action naming Canal; Canal raised a peremptory exception of prescription to her cross-claim.
- Trial court sustained Canal’s prescription exception and dismissed Celestine’s cross-claim with prejudice; Celestine appealed.
- Court of appeal affirmed, holding Celestine’s claim against Canal was prescribed when Gallagher Bassett filed in Louisiana and neither the Louisiana nor Washington filings interrupted prescription as to Canal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gallagher Bassett’s Louisiana suit (filed Dec. 4, 2013) interrupted prescription as to Celestine’s claim against Canal | Gallagher Bassett’s timely suit in another forum interrupted prescription as to all joint tortfeasors/solidary obligors | Celestine’s claim against Canal was already prescribed under Louisiana law when Gallagher Bassett sued; interruption cannot revive an extinguished claim | Held for Canal: interruption cannot revive a claim already prescribed; Gallagher Bassett’s suit did not interrupt prescription as to Canal |
| Whether Celestine’s cross-claim qualified as an incidental demand under La. C.C.P. art. 1067 (thus avoiding prescription) | Cross-claim is an incidental demand and could relate to the main demand if timely filed within 90 days of service | Cross-claim was already time-barred when the main demand was filed, so art. 1067 does not apply | Held for Canal: art. 1067 does not save Celestine’s cross-claim because it was barred when the main demand was filed |
| Whether Celestine’s Washington suit (filed Feb. 13, 2014) interrupted prescription | Filing in Washington interrupted prescription and thus revived Celestine’s claim | Washington suit failed to meet Washington’s tolling/service requirement and was dismissed, so it did not interrupt prescription | Held for Canal: Washington filing did not interrupt prescription because it was deemed not commenced for tolling (service not made within state statute) |
| Whether Canal’s res judicata exception required decision | Celestine’s claims barred on other grounds might not trigger res judicata relief | Even if res judicata plausible, prescription resolution dispositive | Held: res judicata exception dismissed as moot because prescription disposed of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Louviere v. Shell Oil Co., 440 So.2d 93 (La. 1983) (general rule that a timely suit by one party does not automatically toll prescription for others unless special rules apply)
- Taylor v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 579 So.2d 443 (La. 1991) (a timely suit in another state may interrupt prescription if it is a proper commencement for tolling)
- Bordelon v. Medical Center of Baton Rouge, 871 So.2d 1075 (La. 2004) (failure to serve within 90 days does not necessarily negate interruption absent bad faith; legislature intended interruption to continue for other defendants)
- Noggarath v. Fisher, 557 So.2d 1036 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990) (timely suit against one joint tortfeasor interrupts prescription only if the claim against the other tortfeasor was not already prescribed)
- Rizer v. American Surety & Fidelity Ins. Co., 669 So.2d 387 (La. 1996) (once prescription has run it cannot be interrupted; timely suit against one solidary obligor does not revive another's extinguished claim)