Louis Koerner, Jr. v. Vigilant Insurance Company
910 F.3d 221
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- After Hurricane Katrina, CMR sold and installed a Slate 2.0 roof for Koerner in 2005–06 and performed multiple warranty/repair visits (2006, 2007, 2011, early 2012); CMR paid a contractor to perform additional repairs in November 2012.
- Koerner sued his insurer in April 2016; Vigilant denied coverage invoking a faulty-workmanship exclusion and Koerner moved to join CMR as a defendant; CMR was served but the service cover sheet misnamed the entity.
- CMR failed to respond, and Koerner obtained an entry of default and a partial default judgment of nearly $500,000; CMR later moved to set aside the default, claiming lack of willfulness, no prejudice, and meritorious defenses; the district court granted relief.
- After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for CMR on all claims and entered final judgment; Koerner filed two Rule 59(e) motions (to revisit the default-setting and the summary-judgment order) introducing further evidence; both were denied.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed: (1) the district court’s setting aside of the default (abuse-of-discretion, willfulness reviewed for clear error); (2) denial of Rule 59(e) motions (extraordinary relief standard); and (3) de novo review of summary judgment on multiple claims arising from 2006 purchase, 2011 repairs, and 2012 repairs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default was willful such that default judgment should remain | Koerner: repeated direct contacts put CMR on notice; Soulé’s affidavit is false — conduct supports willfulness | CMR: misnamed cover sheet and belief lawsuit was untimely; Soulé’s affidavit explains lack of intentional default | Court: district court did not clearly err in crediting Soulé; setting aside default not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief was proper to reopen interlocutory default order after new evidence | Koerner: new impeaching evidence developed after Soulé’s deposition warranted reconsideration | CMR: evidence was available before final judgment; Rule 59(e) extraordinary and inapplicable; should have used Rule 54(b) earlier | Court: denial proper — evidence was available before final judgment so Rule 59(e) relief was not warranted |
| Fraud claim re: 2006 sale of Slate 2.0 roof | Koerner: CMR misrepresented Slate 2.0 as equivalent to traditional slate; would not have bought roof if he knew differences | CMR: no proof of fraudulent intent; plaintiff could have discovered product differences himself | Court: summary judgment for CMR — no competent evidence of intent and plaintiff could have ascertained the difference |
| Peremption of 2011 repair-related claims under La. R.S. § 9.2772(A) | Koerner: 2011 and 2012 repairs were one continuous project so 2011 work is not perempted | CMR: 2011 work was closed and separate from later work; 2011 claims fall outside five-year window | Court: 2011 claims perempted — plaintiff’s conclusory assertion contradicted job records showing separate jobs |
| Negligence, fraud, and detrimental-reliance claims re: November 2012 repairs | Koerner: CMR liable for negligence of Velasquez (independent contractor), fraud (Klocke email shows intent not to fix), and detrimental reliance on CMR assurances | CMR: Velasquez contracted with Koerner, not CMR; email does not show intent not to fix; detrimental-reliance requires a promise | Court: summary judgment for CMR — no contract between CMR and Velasquez, Klocke email insufficient to prove fraudulent intent, and detrimental-reliance fails because Louisiana Article 1967 requires a promise (an assurance to do or not do something in the future) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2000) (good-cause factors for setting aside default)
- In re Dierschke, 975 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (willful default ends inquiry)
- Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing willfulness finding)
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (Rule 59(e) reconsideration is extraordinary)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary-judgment standard when record blatantly contradicts a party’s story)
- Kariuki v. Tarango, 709 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2013) (genuine dispute of material fact standard)
- Suire v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov’t, 907 So. 2d 37 (La. 2005) (detrimental-reliance discussion emphasizing promises)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 961 So. 2d 1228 (La. Ct. App. 2007) (definition of promise as an assurance to do or not do something in the future)