Murphy Cormier General Contractor, Inc. v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals
114 So. 3d 567
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- MCGC sued the State of Louisiana (DHH) claiming regulatory changes to residential/commercial wastewater systems were enforced selectively and caused economic harm.
- MCGC alleged DHH misrepresented when new Sanitary Code provisions would take effect and then selectively enforced them against MCGC but not competitors.
- Residential units faced 10% pump-on and 10% high-water-alarm capacity requirements, applicable to attached and detached pump tanks per Section 729; commercial units involved different pump requirements and delays.
- Evidence showed DHH personnel (notably Irion) allegedly delayed permits, pressed for design changes, and pursued actions against MCGC while allowing competitors to continue under older standards.
- The jury returned a $7,412,388 verdict for MCGC, including damages for residential units, commercial units, and loss of business reputation; DHH’s motions for relief were denied, and the trial court rejected a cap under La.R.S. 13:5106.
- The court of appeal affirmed, holding that Section 729 applied to both attached and detached pumps, that damages were correctly awarded, including detrimental-reliance damages with a ten-year prescriptive period, and that the statutory cap did not apply to the asserted damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 729 applies to attached pumps as well as detached pumps | MCGC's damages rely on Section 729 applying to both pump types | DHH contends 729 applies only to detached pumps | Section 729 applies to both attached and detached pumps |
| Whether DHH selectively enforced the Sanitary Code against MCGC | Evidence shows DHH punished MCGC while enforcement against others was lax | Enforcement was non-discriminatory and based on code interpretations | No manifest error; evidence supports selective enforcement against MCGC |
| Whether MCGC’s damages include detriment-based damages with ten-year prescriptive period | Detrimental reliance supported by Showboat factors; ten-year prescribes | Detrimental-reliance claims barred or limited by Wooley | Detrimental reliance established; ten-year prescriptive period applies |
| Whether the jury properly instructed on detrimental reliance and immunity issues | Instructions adequately conveyed Showboat factors and damages | Instructions omitted necessary immunity framework | Jury instructions adequate; no prejudicial error on immunity or detrimental-reliance issues |
| Whether the statutory cap in La.R.S. 13:5106 applies to the loss-of-business-reputation award | Loss-of-reputation is a future-earnings-like special damages not subject to cap | Cap should apply to all general damages, including reputational loss | Damages categorized as special damages; not subject to cap; cap does not apply to these awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Land v. Vidrine, 62 So.3d 36 (La. 2011) (venue and supervisory-writ consideration; waiver of venue objections)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 961 So.2d 1228 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (detrimental reliance against state regulators not categorically barred)
- Showboat Star Partnership v. Slaughter, 789 So.2d 554 (La. 2001) (multifactor test for estoppel/detrimental reliance against government)
- Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, 907 So.2d 37 (La. 2005) (determinants of detrimental reliance; reliance on representations)
- State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) (Daubert-style reliability gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- State v. Allen, 942 So.2d 1244 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (Daubert framework applied to expert testimony)