Provosty v. ARC Construction, LLC
204 So. 3d 623
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Henry and Gloria Provosty sued ARC Construction, LLC (ARC), ARC-MO members, and investor-member Icehouse Capital Management, LLC (Icehouse) after construction defects and alleged fraud in a home build post-Katrina.
- A 2011 jury awarded the Provostys damages; the district court entered judgment holding Icehouse and others solidarily liable and discussed piercing ARC’s veil as to Icehouse.
- Icehouse (through managing member Marc Winthrop) moved for a new trial, alleging juror confusion from an erroneously worded interrogatory; the district court granted a new trial (March 13, 2012) and later reduced certain damages; this Court reinstated the emotional-anguish award on prior appeal but left the new-trial issue unresolved.
- Following a bench trial on Icehouse/Winthrop’s individual liability, the district court (Sept. 2, 2015) dismissed Icehouse from liability, finding Bossier factors inapplicable and no proof Winthrop knew of or profited from fraud.
- The Provostys appealed; the appellate court converted the appeal to a supervisory-writ application because the Sept. 2, 2015 judgment lacked decretal language, granted the writs, and affirmed both the new-trial grant and the dismissal of Icehouse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by granting Icehouse a new trial based on possible jury confusion from an erroneous interrogatory | Granting a new trial was improper because record shows no juror confusion; jury consistently found Icehouse participated in fraud | New trial proper because erroneous Question 14 (misidentifying ARC-MO membership) could have confused jurors and tainted factfinding | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in granting new trial due to potential taint from erroneous interrogatory |
| Whether Winthrop/Icehouse may be held individually liable under Bossier veil-piercing/fraud exception | Winthrop had equal participation/authority, knowledge of fraud, and profited—so Bossier compels individual liability | Winthrop was mostly an investor/remote managing member; lacked day-to-day control, knowledge of specific fraud, and did not profit from Plaintiffs’ losses | Affirmed: trial court’s factual finding that Bossier inapplicable not manifestly erroneous; no liability as to Icehouse/Winthrop |
Key Cases Cited
- Provosty v. ARC Const., LLC, 119 So.3d 23 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (prior appellate opinion recounting jury findings and issues on remand)
- Bossier Millwork & Supply Co. v. D. & R. Const. Co., 245 So.2d 414 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1971) (individual liability where shareholder had equal control, knowledge of deceit, and profited)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (legal error that interdicts fact-finding removes abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (appellate courts defer to reasonable credibility evaluations by fact-finders)