Holt v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24448
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Holt suffered extensive January 2007 fire damage to his New Orleans home and sought payment under his homeowners policy.
- Holt sued State Farm in February 2008; State Farm removed the case to federal court and argued prescription barred the claim.
- Louisiana amended prescriptive statutes in Act 43 of 2007, extending the period from 12 to 24 months for insurance claims, effective August 15, 2007.
- Holt argued Act 43 retroactively extended his time to sue since his claim arose before but was filed after the amendment became effective.
- State Farm argued Act 43 was substantive and prospective only, or unconstitutional if retroactively applied; district court disagreed and held retroactive application appropriate.
- The district court certified the prescription issue for immediate appeal; this court affirmed that Act 43 retroactively applies to Holt's claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 43 retroactively applies to Holt's claim | Holt benefits from extended prescription, retroactive effect. | Act 43 is substantive; retroactivity violates vested rights or would revive a prescribed action. | Act 43 retroactively applies to Holt |
| How Act 43 should be classified for retroactivity under Article 6 | Statutes extending prescription are procedural and retroactive absent express contrary intent. | Statutes extending prescription are substantive and retroactive effects may be limited by vested rights. | Act 43 is applied retroactively as procedural; no vested-right issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Chance v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 635 So.2d 177 (La. 1994) (prescription generally procedural; exceptions for vested rights or revival of actions)
- Lott v. Haley, 370 So.2d 521 (La. 1979) (procedural nature of prescription; vesting of rights; exceptions to retroactivity)
- Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 785 So.2d 1 (La. 2001) (Article 6 retroactivity inquiry; legislative intent controls)
- Bourgeois v. A.P. Green Indus. Inc., 783 So.2d 1251 (La. 2001) (Article 6 analysis; textual intent surrounding retroactivity)
- Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish Sch. Bd., 633 So.2d 1235 (La. 1994) (Article 6 inquiry; dispositive first step)
- State v. All Prop. and Cas. Ins. Carriers Authorized & Licensed to Do Bus. in the State of La., 937 So.2d 313 (La. 2006) (retroactivity of 2006 Katrina/Rita prescriptive extensions; discussion of retroactivity and substantive nature)
- All Prop., 937 So.2d 313 (La. 2006) (held retroactive extension; discussion deemed dicta by later court; supports substantive vs procedural discussion)