143 So. 3d 520
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- MAPP Construction and Bituminous sued twelve subcontractor insurers, including Crum & Forster, in a declaratory judgment action seeking to recover Bituminous’s defense costs for MAPP as an additional insured in the Southgate project litigation.
- Southgate intervened as declaratory judgment intervenor and later was substituted as plaintiff after a confidential settlement between MAPP, Bituminous, and Southgate, with assignment of MAPP/Bituminous rights to Southgate.
- Crum & Forster contested the assignment, the reasonableness of fees, and relied on that the defense costs were not properly the subject of declaratory relief or as a 100% defense-cost duty by C&F.
- The trial court granted a partial summary judgment on October 25, 2011, against C&F, reserving issues on the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees and costs.
- Southgate moved to determine the amount of defense costs, and in September 2012 the trial court entered a hybrid second judgment awarding about $6.7 million to Southgate, plus interest, without a final determination of all issues.
- This court converted the appeal to supervisory review, vacated the September 25, 2012 judgment, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the award improperly acted as a monetary award in a declaratory action and that many issues required a merits trial rather than summary disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of the hybrid judgment | C&F contends the second judgment is a final monetary award. | Southgate argues the judgment is not a final, appealable judgment. | Second judgment not final; convert to supervisory review and vacate. |
| Proper scope of declaratory relief in awards of defense costs | Southgate seeks monetary relief as assignee and intervenor under the declaratory action. | C&F contends relief should declare rights, not award damages. | Monetary award not proper under declaratory relief; vacate. |
| Use of summary proceedings to determine attorney fees | Southgate moved for partial summary judgment on fees as part of the declaratory action. | C&F argues merits and reasonableness require full evidentiary trial, not summary. | Summary proceedings improper for fixing attorney’s fees; merits trial required. |
| Adequacy of proof on reasonableness of defense costs | Southgate bears burden to show reasonableness with affidavits and documents. | C&F argues evidence is insufficient and hearsay/witness issues invalid on summary. | Summary judgment improper; credibility determinations not appropriate; remand for merits trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avants v. Kennedy, 837 So.2d 647 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2002) (declaratory relief scope and remedial relief limits)
- Thompson v. Copolymer Intern. Inc., 446 So.2d 1339 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984) (declaratory judgments require merits for damages relief)
- Trans Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 652 So.2d 686 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1995) (declaratory judgments provide rights but not monetary relief absent proper pleadings)
- State Through Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm’n v. Louisiana State Police Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Div., 694 So.2d 316 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1996) (scope of relief in declaratory judgments; need for proper relief requests)
- Hemphill v. Strain, 341 So.2d 1186 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976) (evidence and summary-judgment considerations in evaluating issues)
- Pugh v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 994 So.2d 95 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting on summary judgment and evidentiary standards)