McLean v. Majestic Mortuary Services Inc.
96 So. 3d 571
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- McLean sues Majestic Mortuary Services, Inc. and MetLife for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud over Funeral and life-insurance dealings after her husband’s death.
- Decedent died in Jefferson Parish; McLean, the sole MetLife beneficiary, sought life-insurance proceeds and contested payment handling.
- Majestic prepared/handled funeral services; McLean alleged service failures and mismanagement.
- MetLife issued partial proceeds and threatened interpleader; later a concursus was filed in Orleans Parish.
- Orleans concursus dismissed MetLife with prejudice; McLean pursued additional claims in Jefferson Parish suit.
- District court sustained res judicata as to MetLife and improper venue as to Majestic; court remanded/ transferred some issues to Orleans Parish.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata scope after concursus | McLean seeks relief beyond concursus scope | Res judicata bars all related claims against MetLife | Partial relief from res judicata; limits apply to proceeds only |
| Improper venue for Majestic | Jefferson Parish proper under ancillary or contract/location theories | Orleans Parish proper venue for Majestic | Majestic venue improper in Jefferson Parish; transfer to Orleans Parish ordered |
| No cause of action moot | No action remained after venue ruling | Remains moot after transfer | No action on no-cause-of-action issue addressed due to venue ruling |
| Ancillary venue applicability | Ancillary venue allows consolidation of claims | Ancillary venue inappropriate since not joint/solidary obligors | Ancillary venue not applicable |
| Transfer and remand implications | Transfer to Orleans necessary for proper adjudication | Transfer unnecessary if venue corrected | Transfer to Orleans Parish affirmed; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 993 So.2d 187 (La. 2008) (five elements of res judicata; transaction/occurrence focus)
- Amoco Production Co. v. Carruth, 457 So.2d 797 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1984) (reconventional demands in concursus debated; limits of concursus)
- Mary Adams and Associates v. Rosenblat, 539 So.2d 860 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1989) (maximum award limited to funds deposited in concursus)
- Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hosp., 714 So.2d 715 (La. 1998) (ancillary venue doctrine; economy vs. proper venue)