Prime Insurance Co. v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.
151 So. 3d 670
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Prime appeals a grant of summary judgment in Imperial’s favor in a LUTPA/malicious prosecution/conspiracy case arising from a longstanding taxicab insurance market dispute in New Orleans.
- Underlying suit (filed 9 Dec 2002) alleged Prime sold non-compliant, deductible-based policies violating Louisiana full-coverage rules; two insurers (Prime and Imperial) dominated the market.
- Prime’s policies allegedly included a $500 self-insured retention and deductible of defense costs; DOI and trial court actions led to automatic policy reform mid-2003 and a ruling that the policies were reformed as a matter of law.
- Plaintiffs alleged damages and sought damages, voidance, fees, and declaratory relief, but no plaintiff demonstrated actual damages during the seven-year prosecution.
- Imperial and its associate Porobil allegedly had longstanding business ties with taxicab defendants and were alleged to have ulterior motives in prosecuting the suit to damage Prime’s New Orleans market share.
- After class certification was denied and the underlying suit dismissed, Prime filed this action alleging malicious prosecution, conspiracy, restraint of trade, and LUTPA; Imperial moved for summary judgment and was granted, setting the stage for Prime’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact on conspiracy. | Prime argues Imperial participated in or aided the conspiracy. | Imperial contends no direct evidence links it to the underlying suit. | Fact questions exist; summary judgment reversed as to conspiracy. |
| Whether Prime stated a claim for malicious prosecution. | Prime shows lack of probable cause and improper initiation. | Imperial argues no causation or improper motive shown. | Probable cause disputes exist; Prime states a plausible malicious-prosecution claim. |
| Whether LUTPA claims are properly pled and supported by facts. | LUTPA violations occurred through unfair/intimidating actions to remove Prime’s competitor. | LUTPA allegations lack substantiation of conduct. | LUTPA claim adequately pled with evidence of alleged unfair conduct. |
| Whether summary judgment was inappropriate given credibility and motive factors. | Credibility and motive issues require a factfinder. | Record supports no genuine issue after weighing evidence. | Summary judgment improper on credibility/intent questions; remand for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crutcher-Tufts Resources, Inc. v. Tufts, 992 So.2d 1091 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (conspiracy claims require underlying tort and meeting of the minds)
- Ross v. Conoco, Inc., 828 So.2d 546 (La. Supreme Court, 2002) (conspiracy element requires proof of agreement or collusion)
- Thomas v. North 40 Land Development, Inc., 894 So.2d 1160 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (meeting of the minds to commit wrongdoing required for conspiracy)
- Ames v. Ohle, 97 So.3d 386 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (conspiracy proof may be inferred from knowledge or actions of co-conspirators)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 51 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy damages and liability principles applied across jurisdictions)