Reyer v. Milton Homes, LLC
272 So. 3d 604
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Claimant William Reyer filed a disputed claim alleging a June 7, 2017 work injury while employed by Milton Homes; Milton Homes asserted third‑party demands against Flipnmove, Extreme Reach, and Indemnity asserting indemnity/coverage obligations.
- Milton Homes alleged Reyer performed work on Flipnmove’s TV production and that Flipnmove agreed to provide workers’ compensation coverage (via Extreme Reach), making Flipnmove solidarily liable.
- Flipnmove filed a “peremptory exception of improper party,” seeking dismissal from the third‑party demand. The OWC granted the exception and dismissed Flipnmove with prejudice.
- Milton Homes appealed, arguing the exception was improperly treated/decided, disputed evidentiary rulings, and contended dismissal with prejudice was improper without discovery or amendment.
- The appellate court construed Flipnmove’s filing as either a no cause of action or no right of action exception, reviewed the pleadings and the limited evidence introduced, and reversed the OWC, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Milton Homes) | Defendant's Argument (Flipnmove) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flipnmove’s filing was a proper peremptory exception and whether the petition states a cause of action | Petition alleges Flipnmove agreed to provide workers’ comp coverage and thus could be solidarily liable; pleadings state a remedy under La. R.S. 23:1031 and La. C.C. art. 2324 | Exception labeled improper party argued Reyer wasn’t Flipnmove’s employee/special employer so no liability | Court: Substance controls; construed as no‑cause/no‑right exceptions and held the petition (accepted as true) does state a cause of action — sustaining exception was legal error |
| Whether Milton Homes has a right of action against Flipnmove (no right of action) | Milton Homes, as third‑party plaintiff, has interest to enforce indemnity/coverage obligations alleged in its third‑party demand | Flipnmove contends Reyer was not its employee/borrowed employee and Milton Homes lacks standing to sue Flipnmove | Court: Pleadings and deposition excerpts sufficiently allege facts supporting a right of action; sustaining the exception was error |
| Admissibility and effect of evidence introduced at exception hearing (affidavit, unrelated court order, deal memo) | The Freelance Crew Deal Memo and deposition support Flipnmove’s role and agreement to provide coverage; exclusion/proffer rulings prejudiced Milton Homes | Quail affidavit asserted Reyer was never employed by Flipnmove; Flipnmove objected to memo as unsigned/not contract | Court: Even if some evidence rulings were erroneous, the pleadings plus Reyer’s deposition suffice to show a right of action; evidentiary disputes rendered moot by reversal |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate without allowing amendment/discovery | Dismissal with prejudice was too extreme; should allow amendment/discovery to develop employment relationship facts | Sought dismissal of party as improper | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was improper because exception should not have been sustained; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (function of no cause of action exception—tests legal sufficiency of petition)
- Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211 (La. 2006) (standards for no cause of action exceptions)
- Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La. 2004) (burden on mover to demonstrate petition states no cause of action)
- State, Div. of Admin., Office of Facility Planning & Control v. Infinity Sur. Agency, L.L.C., 63 So.3d 940 (La. 2011) (accept well‑pleaded facts as true on no cause of action review)
- Howard v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 986 So.2d 47 (La. 2008) (procedure and evidence rules applicable to no right of action exceptions)