62 So. 3d 704
La.2011Background
- Moreno was injured working near an overhead power line in Jefferson Parish; Entergy sought indemnity against third-party contractors under the Overhead Power Line Safety Act (OPLSA).
- Trial court ruled the OPLSA does not create an independent right of indemnity for third-party injuries.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, prematurity-based sua sponte ruling, holding no fault or damages had been assessed against Entergy.
- Writs were granted to Entergy and Stewart Interior Contractors to challenge the sua sponte prematurity ruling.
- Louisiana Supreme Court held there is no existing prematurity exception and that the court of appeal erred in raising a different prematurity-related issue on its own motion.
- The case is remanded for consideration of pretermitted issues not addressed in the original opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence and propriety of a prematurity exception; appellate sua sponte authority | Moreno challenges any prematurity-based exception raised by court of appeal | Entergy argues appellate court may raise prematurity sua sponte | No prematurity exception; cannot be raised sua sponte |
| Distinction between no cause of action and prematurity | Moreno asserts true doctrines are distinct and not conflated | Court conflated prematurity with no cause of action | Different inquiries; court erred in conflating them |
| Prematurity applicability to third-party indemnity before judgment | Indemnity claims should not be deemed premature | Indemnity claims prematutre until judgment | Indemnity claim not premature as a matter of law; requires proper analysis on remand |
| Remand for pretermitted issues | Remand appropriate to address unresolved issues | N/A | Remand to consider pretermitted issues not addressed previously |
Key Cases Cited
- Teche Financial Services, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, 939 So.2d 650 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (prematurity and dilatory exceptions principles cited)
- Steed v. St. Paul’s United Methodist Church, 728 So.2d 931 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1999) (prematurity discussion; distinguishing prematurity and no cause of action)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (no-cause-of-action vs. prematurity distinction; legal sufficiency test)
- Steeg v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 329 So.2d 719 (La. 1976) (prematurity can be raised by multiple pleadings; discussed in context of exhaustion of remedies)
- O'Meara v. Union Oil Co., 212 La. 745, 33 So.2d 506 (La. 1947) (early authority on prematurity and related defenses)
- Williamson v. Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (prematurity and related doctrines discussed in jurisprudence)