Reyer v. Milton Homes, LLC
272 So. 3d 604
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Employee William Reyer filed a disputed claim alleging he injured his foot/ankle on June 7, 2017 while working for Milton Homes.
- Milton Homes filed third‑party demands against Flipnmove, Extreme Reach, and Indemnity, alleging Flipnmove agreed to provide workers' compensation coverage (making it jointly liable).
- Flipnmove filed a "peremptory exception of improper party" seeking dismissal; the OWC sustained the exception and dismissed Flipnmove with prejudice.
- At the OWC hearing, parties introduced evidence (Reyer deposition, affidavit of Flipnmove president, an unsigned "Freelance Crew Deal Memo"); the OWC excluded the memo and admitted other documents.
- Milton Homes appealed, arguing the exception was improperly treated/granted and challenging several evidentiary rulings; the appellate court reviewed whether the exception should be treated as no cause of action or no right of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Milton Homes) | Defendant's Argument (Flipnmove) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "improper party" exception was properly considered | Exception should be treated as no cause/right of action and denied; pleadings state a claim | Exception asserted Reyer not Flipnmove employee; no basis for Milton to proceed | Court: exception could be construed as no cause or no right; must analyze both; sustaining was error |
| Whether Milton Homes pleaded a cause of action against Flipnmove (no cause of action) | Alleged Flipnmove agreed to provide WC coverage; La. R.S. 23:1031 and art. 2324 provide remedy | Mover must show petition affords no remedy | Court: pleadings, taken as true, state a cause of action; evidence at exception hearing was improperly considered if treated as no cause of action |
| Whether Milton Homes has a right to sue Flipnmove (no right of action) | Pleadings and Reyer deposition show Flipnmove exercised direction/control; Milton has interest to enforce claim | Flipnmove contends Reyer was never its employee or "special employer" under 23:1031 | Court: pleadings and deposition excerpts articulate a right of action; evidence may be introduced on no‑right exceptions but dismissal was erroneous |
| Admissibility of disputed evidence at exception hearing (affidavit, order, memo) | Memo supports employment/insurance agreement; exclusion/proffer denied; affidavit hearsay | Flipnmove relied on affidavit and other documents to challenge relationship | Court: some evidentiary rulings moot for right/no‑cause analysis; deposition and pleadings suffice to show right/cause; exclusion did not cure error of sustaining exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiggins v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 712 So.2d 1006 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1998) (substance of pleading controls over caption)
- Scott v. Hogan, 255 So.3d 24 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2018) (pleadings construed for what they really are)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (function of exception of no cause of action)
- Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La. 2004) (burden on mover to show petition states no cause of action)
- State, Div. of Admin. v. Infinity Surety Agency, L.L.C., 63 So.3d 940 (La. 2011) (accept well‑pleaded allegations as true in no‑cause review)
- Howard v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 986 So.2d 47 (La. 2008) (procedures for introducing evidence on no‑right exceptions)
- Occidental Properties Ltd. v. Zufle, 165 So.3d 124 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (affidavit as hearsay absent statutory authorization)