McKenzie v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 122 So. 3d 42

Background

On Oct. 19, 2008 McKenzie was injured when another driver crossed the median on I‑10 and collided with him; he sued the driver, the driver’s insurer (Imperial), and his UIM carrier (State Farm) on Nov. 24, 2008 in St. Bernard Parish.
On Oct. 13, 2010 McKenzie filed a supplemental amended petition adding DOTD, alleging DOTD’s negligence/strict liability for failing to provide an adequate median barricade.
DOTD filed a declinatory exception for improper venue under La. R.S. 13:5104(A); the case transferred to St. Tammany Parish on June 24, 2011.
DOTD later filed a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing McKenzie’s claims against it were filed more than one year after the accident and did not relate back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153.
The trial court sustained DOTD’s prescription exception and dismissed McKenzie’s claims; McKenzie appealed.
The appellate court concluded (accepting petition allegations as true) that the original suit was timely and filed in a court of proper jurisdiction and venue when commenced, that DOTD and the original defendants were alleged joint tortfeasors, and that interruption of prescription against timely‑sued joint tortfeasors applies to DOTD; it reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the original timely suit (filed in St. Bernard) interrupted prescription as to DOTD after DOTD was added later	McKenzie: the Nov. 24, 2008 suit interrupted prescription; under La. C.C. art. 2324(C) interruption as to one joint tortfeasor applies to all, so DOTD’s claims are timely	DOTD: mandatory venue for state defendants made the original suit improper as to DOTD; because DOTD was not served within one year, prescription was not interrupted under La. C.C. art. 3462	Held: original suit was filed in a court of proper jurisdiction and venue when commenced; interruption occurred and, per art. 2324(C), applied to DOTD; reversal and remand
Whether La. C.C. arts. 3462 and 2324(C) conflict so that art. 3462 controls to bar interruption when venue later becomes improper	McKenzie: the statutes can be harmonized; once interruption occurs it applies to joint tortfeasors and continues while suit is pending	DOTD: art. 3462 addresses venue and prevents interruption when the original suit was not proper as to that defendant	Held: no irreconcilable conflict; art. 3462 governs how interruption occurs, and art. 2324(C) then extends that interruption to joint tortfeasors; art. 2324(C) controls as to joint tortfeasor consequence
Whether plaintiff must establish relation back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 to avoid prescription	McKenzie: not necessary if interruption against a joint tortfeasor was already established	DOTD: argues amended petition did not comply with Ray criteria for relation back	Held: relation‑back analysis unnecessary once interruption via suit against joint tortfeasors is established
Whether lack of solidary liability defeats interruption application	DOTD: trial court relied on absence of solidarity to sustain prescription	McKenzie: claims alleged joint (not necessarily solidary) tortfeasor status	Held: solidary liability not required; joint tortfeasor status sufficed for art. 2324(C) interruption

Key Cases Cited

Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La. 1983) (criteria for relation back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 when identity of defendant changes)
Bell v. Kreider, 858 So.2d 58 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2003) (holding interruption may fail when original suit was not proper as to later‑added defendants under venue rule)
Nunnery v. Elmore, 835 So.2d 645 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2002) (distinguishing lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction from venue and finding interruption fails where initial court lacked competency)
Gilmore v. Whited, 9 So.3d 296 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review and prescription timing principles)
Wheat v. Nievar, 984 So.2d 773 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2008) (burden rules and acceptance of petition allegations when no evidence introduced on prescription exception)