Mentz Construction Services, Inc. v. Poche
87 So. 3d 273
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ms. Poche entered a contract with Mentz Construction Services for home renovation on January 14, 2008.
- Renovation issues arose, leading to contract termination by Ms. Poche on April 30, 2008.
- MCS sued Ms. Poche for non-payment on June 10, 2008; Poche asserted reconventional and added Scottsdale Insurance and Mentz as third-party defendants.
- Mentz and Scottsdale filed peremptory exceptions—Mentz for no cause of action and Scottsdale for no right of action; district court sustained both.
- This Court previously affirmed the no-cause-of-action ruling against Mentz (with dismissal without prejudice) and reversed and remanded Scottsdale’s right-of-action ruling for lack of policy evidence.
- On remand, Scottsdale attached its MCS insurance policies; the district court again granted the no-right-of-action exception, and Poche appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DAS applies to Poche's reconventional claims. | Poche argues DAS permits direct action against insurer for tort-like duties arising from contract. | Scottsdale contends DAS only covers tort claims, not contract-based breaches. | DAS does not apply; claims arise from contract. |
| Whether Poche’s claims against MCS are ex contractu or ex delicto. | Poche alleges both contract-based breaches and negligent supervision. | Scottsdale asserts claims arise solely from the contract with MCS. | Claims are ex contractu; duties flow from the construction contract. |
| Whether the district court properly sustained the no right of action exception against Scottsdale. | DAS allows direct action against insurer for tort-related damages. | DAS does not apply to purely contractual breach claims. | Proper to sustain no right of action; DAS inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinlan v. Liberty Bank and Trust Co., 575 So.2d 336 (La. 1990) (DAS scope for tort-related direct actions against insurers)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Sear-Lar Mgmt., 787 So.2d 1069 (La.2001) (distinction ex contractu vs ex delicto; implied contractual obligations)
- Corbello v. Iowa Prod., 850 So.2d 686 (La.2003) (dual remedies in contract and tort when duties arise from contractual relationship)
- Austin Homes, Inc. v. Thibodeaux, 821 So.2d 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2002) (implied contractual obligations and workmanlike performance in construction)
- Mount Mariah Baptist Church, Inc. v. Pannell’s Associated Elec., Inc., 835 So.2d 880 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (implied duties in construction contracts)
- Federal Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 263 So.2d 871 (La.1972) (contract vs. tort distinction and policy considerations)
- Hood v. Cotter, 5 So.3d 819 (La. 2008) (peremptory exception of no right of action standard)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Sear-Lar Mgmt., 787 So.2d 1069 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (distinction between contract and tort actions)