Jouve v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
74 So. 3d 220
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Patrick and Elizabeth Jouve owned a home in New Orleans insured by State Farm; NFIP flood policy also covered flood losses.
- Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage; NFIP paid building loss and State Farm paid wind-related damages under homeowners policy.
- Plaintiffs sued State Farm for bad faith adjustments, seeking penalties and attorney fees under La. R.S. 22:658 and 22:1220; State Farm answered and discovery ensued.
- State Farm moved in limine to exclude plaintiffs' expert A. Vincent Caracci and moved for partial summary judgment on bad faith and dwelling claims.
- Trial court granted the motions in part: excluding Caracci’s testimony and report; dismissing bad faith claims; and limiting dwelling damages to actual cash value minus depreciation.
- Plaintiffs appealed the April 7, 2010 judgment and the June 30, 2010 denial of their motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Caracci as expert | Caracci qualified by experience and should testify. | Caracci lacked necessary qualifications and methodology; Daubert applied. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Caracci excluded. |
| Bad faith penalties and fees | State Farm acted arbitrarily and capriciously after satisfactory proof of loss. | No genuine issue of bad faith; timely adjustments and tenders supported by evidence. | Partial summary judgment upheld; bad faith claims dismissed. |
| Dwelling loss recovery—replacement cost vs actual cash value | Plaintiffs entitled to replacement cost when repairs completed; depreciation not proper. | As is sale and failure to repair limits recovery to actual cash value at loss. | Amend judgment to delete 'minus depreciation'; recoverable amount remains actual cash value at loss; replacement cost not awarded. |
| New trial on newly discovered evidence | Newly discovered evidence warrants new trial; miscommunication about pre-trial motions. | Evidence was not new or not sufficient to change outcome; due diligence did not fail. | Denial of new trial affirmed. |
| Use of malpractice remedy as alternative to new trial | Trial court erred in considering malpractice remedy as substitute for new trial. | Court properly focused on evidence and standard for new trial. | Not clearly erroneous; no de novo review required; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheairs v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 861 So.2d 536 (La. 2003) (Daubert addresses reliability, not qualifications)
- City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1998) (three-part test for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993) (factors for reliability of expert methods)
- Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 857 So.2d 1012 (La. 2003) (vexatious refusal to pay; standard for bad faith)
- Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indemnity Co., 999 So.2d 1104 (La. 2008) (test for whether insurer's payment delay was arbitrary or with cause)
- Sher v. Lafayette Insurance Co., 988 So.2d 186 (La. 2008) (penalties for failure to timely pay after satisfactory proof of loss)
- Real Asset Management, Inc. v. Lloyd's of London, 61 F.3d 1223 (5th Cir. 1995) (actual cash value equals replacement cost minus depreciation)
- Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 956 So.2d 583 (La. 2007) (contract interpretation of insurance policies)