249 So. 3d 18
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- LWCC insured Coleman Roofing under a policy with a premium audit endorsement allowing LWCC to audit payroll/remuneration and adjust final premium.
- LWCC audited Coleman Roofing on November 21, 2011 and assessed an additional premium of $128,088.40; Coleman Roofing disputed the audit and refused to pay.
- LWCC sued Coleman Roofing and guarantors Chris and Pamela Yancy for the unpaid premium, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
- At summary judgment LWCC relied on the policy, the audit report, and affidavits by two LWCC employees (not the auditor who performed the field audit) but did not submit the underlying Coleman Roofing business records used in the audit.
- Defendants contested the existence of unreported subcontractors/remunerations and challenged the sufficiency and credibility of LWCC’s affidavits.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for LWCC; the appellate court reversed, finding LWCC failed to meet its initial summary-judgment burden because its supporting evidence did not resolve material factual disputes about the audit and unreported remunerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LWCC proved there was no genuine issue of material fact as to unpaid premium based on its audit | LWCC: its audit and affidavits establish defendants owe $128,088.40 and no fact issue remains | Defendants: LWCC failed to produce the auditor’s affidavit or the business records; affidavits are conclusory and self-serving | Reversed: LWCC did not meet its initial burden; materials submitted do not resolve material fact issues |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of LWCC affidavits (Mayfield, Whitehead) to verify audit | LWCC: affidavits attest to audit correctness and veracity, shifting burden to defendants | Defendants: affidavits lack personal knowledge of the auditor’s review and are unsupported by the underlying records | Held: Affidavits alone were insufficient under La. C.C.P. art. 967; they did not show affiants reviewed or could competently testify to the underlying business records |
| Whether credibility assessments were made improperly at summary judgment | LWCC implicitly relied on its affiants’ statements as resolving disputes | Defendants: trial court improperly made credibility/weight determinations and disregarded material factual disputes | Held: Appellate court found genuine issues remained and that trial court erred in granting summary judgment where credibility and record-based issues persisted |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp. v. Landry, 92 So.3d 1018 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (purpose of summary judgment and piercing the pleadings)
- Willis v. Medders, 775 So.2d 1049 (La. 2000) (factual inferences and doubts resolved for the non-mover)
- Regions Bank v. Louisiana Pipe & Steel Fabricators, LLC, 80 So.3d 1209 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2011) (affidavit sufficient where affiant demonstrated personal knowledge and review of bank records)
- Capital One Bank (USA), NA v. Sanches, 119 So.3d 870 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (supporting affidavit principles)
- Delcambre v. Price, 738 So.2d 593 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1999) (affidavit requirements under La. C.C.P. art. 967)
- Neighbors Federal Credit Union v. Anderson, 196 So.3d 727 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (mover must first present documents sufficient to resolve material facts before burden shifts)
- Barfield v. Diamond Construction Incorporated, 217 So.3d 1211 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2017) (contrast re: burden shifting in statutory audit contexts)