316 So.3d 522
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Janice Kosak and Janice Chaisson alleged injuries in two separate 2015 automobile collisions and sued (Feb. 4, 2016) seeking UM benefits from their carrier, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. (Farm Bureau).
- Plaintiffs amended on June 6, 2019 to add first-party bad-faith claims under La. R.S. 22:1892 and 22:1973, alleging Farm Bureau made a delayed or no tender after satisfactory proof of loss.
- Farm Bureau filed an Exception of Prescription (Aug. 5, 2019) arguing the bad-faith claims were time-barred; it also moved to strike certain damages and policy-limit references.
- The trial court granted Farm Bureau’s Exception of Prescription and Motion to Strike (signed Sept. 27, 2019), dismissing the amended bad-faith claims with prejudice, and certified that portion of the judgment as final and appealable under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B).
- On de novo review the court of appeal concluded the trial court’s 1915(B) certification was improper because the dismissed bad-faith claims were intertwined with remaining contract/UM claims and the partial judgment did not meet the Messinger factors; the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly certified its ruling dismissing bad-faith claims as final under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) | Certification was proper so plaintiffs could immediately appeal dismissal of statutory penalties and fees | Certification was improper because remaining contract/UM claims are intertwined and Messinger factors not satisfied | Certification improper; appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiffs’ bad-faith claims are prescribed | Bad-faith claims relate back / are timely (argued in amended petition) | Bad-faith claims are prescribed (relying on Labarre and a one-year prescriptive analysis) | Not reached on the merits by the appellate court (trial court had found them prescribed) |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting Farm Bureau’s Motion to Strike references to policy limits and specific monetary amounts | Strike was improper and prejudicial | Strike was proper under La. C.C.P. art. 893 and La. Evid. art. 411 | Not resolved on appeal (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) |
| Whether plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary/Declaratory Judgment was wrongly deemed moot | Plaintiffs contended Farm Bureau liable for bad faith, so motion should not be moot | Farm Bureau argued motion moot after exception granted | Not resolved on appeal (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 894 So. 2d 1113 (La. 2005) (trial-court 1915(B) certification must account for Messinger factors; appellate de novo review allowed)
- Labarre v. Texas Brine Co. LLC, 260 So. 3d 1217 (La. 2018) (appellate panel endorsed a one-year prescriptive period for certain bad-faith claims; relied on by trial court)
- Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., 285 So. 3d 1062 (La. 2019) (held first-party insurer bad-faith claims are governed by ten-year prescriptive period under La. C.C. art. 3499)
- Pelle v. Munos, 296 So. 3d 14 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2020) (bad-faith penalties are penal and contingent on an underlying valid insurance claim)