184 So. 3d 850
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- The Louisiana Supreme Court remanded for consideration of Lobell's sole remaining assignment challenging 2025 Canal's restoration-cost award.
- The Supreme Court reinstated the lease termination portion and remanded to address the restoration-damages award on the underlying record.
- Trial court awarded 2025 Canal $3,230,162.72 for restoration costs, based on insurers' replacement-cost estimates rather than the higher expert figure.
- Evidence showed two permissible views: Lobell's insurers' replacement-cost estimates and Wolff's higher restoration estimate; the court chosen the lower figures.
- Lobell challenged the restoration-cost award on remand; 2025 Canal argued the award was reasonable and supported by record evidence.
- The opinion affirms the restoration-cost award, and declines to revisit rent or interest issues that were not properly preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the restoration-cost award supported by the record? | Lobell: restoration-cost amount not supported by evidence. | 2025 Canal: award is supported by insurers' replacement-cost estimates and not clearly wrong. | Affirmed; record supports $3,230,126.72 restoration costs. |
| Should the award have relied on higher estimates (Wolff) instead of insurers' figures? | Lobell: higher expert figure should have been adopted. | 2025 Canal: lower insurer-based figures are more reliable and evidentiary. | Affirmed; trial judge reasonably chose the insurers' figures. |
| Whether the court may adjust past rent or interest on remand? | Lobell: remand requires recalculation to reflect lease termination effects. | 2025 Canal: rent and interest issues already decided or not properly raised on appeal. | Not reconsidered; rent and interest issues were not properly preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lobell v. Rosenberg, 186 So.3d 83 (La. 2015) (precedent on remand and damages not appealed)
- Duncan v. Bartholomew, 88 So.3d 698 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (special damages concept)
- Corbello v. Iowa Production, 850 So.2d 686 (La. 2003) (manifest error-clearly wrong standard for damages)
- Watson v. Hicks, 172 So.3d 655 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2015) (proof burden for special damages; preponderance standard)
- Rousset v. Smith, 176 So.3d 632 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2015) (two-permissible-views principle in appellate review)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987) (scope of appellate review for factual findings)
- Scarberry v. Entergy Corp., 136 So.3d 194 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2014) (two-step approach to special-damages review)
- Husband v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 635 So.2d 309 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1994) (restoration value subject to depreciation rules)