Reynolds v. Bordelon
2015 La. LEXIS 1486
La.2015Background
- March 15, 2008: Richard Reynolds was injured in a multi-vehicle crash and sued the alleged tortfeasor and Nissan under the LPLA for airbag nondeployment.
- Reynolds alleged his insurer (Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, ACI-IE) and the vehicle custodian (Insurance Auto Auctions Corp., IAA) failed to preserve his totaled vehicle after notice, impairing his ability to pursue the products-liability claim.
- ACI-IE and IAA moved via peremptory exceptions of no cause of action (and summary judgment in the alternative), arguing negligent spoliation requires intentional destruction and the petition alleged only negligence.
- Lower courts split over recognition of negligent spoliation; the First Circuit at one point discussed the theory in dicta, later rejected it; this Court granted certiorari to resolve whether Louisiana recognizes negligent spoliation.
- The Supreme Court held that Louisiana does not recognize a tort of negligent spoliation (no duty to preserve evidence as a matter of public policy) but remanded because the petition adequately alleged a possible breach of contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana recognizes negligent spoliation of evidence as a tort | Reynolds: courts should recognize negligent spoliation or otherwise permit recovery for negligent destruction or loss of evidence via general negligence, loss of opportunity, impairment of claim, detrimental reliance, or special-duty theories | ACI-IE/IAA: No cause of action; existing precedent requires intentional spoliation for spoliation claims; petition alleges negligence only | Court: No tort of negligent spoliation — public policy precludes duty to preserve evidence; no delictual liability under art. 2315 |
| Whether a special duty (contract, undertaking, or special relationship) can create negligent-spoliation liability | Reynolds: a specific duty arose from agreement/undertaking, insurer-insured relationship, or contractual obligations to preserve the vehicle | Defendants: absent statutory or clear contractual duty, no basis to impose a preservation duty | Court: Even if a special duty is alleged, policy reasons (deterrence, speculative damages, predictability, resource allocation) counsel against recognizing a duty to preserve evidence by third parties |
| Whether alternate remedies negate the need to recognize the tort | Reynolds: tort required to compensate and deter third-party spoliation | Defendants: other remedies and sanctions exist (discovery sanctions, adverse presumption, criminal or contractual remedies) | Court: Availability of sanctions, contractual remedies, preservation orders, adverse inferences, and ability to retain or repurchase property supports rejecting the tort |
| Whether the petition states any valid cause of action despite rejecting negligent spoliation | Reynolds: petition includes multiple theories beyond negligent spoliation | Defendants: dismissal proper because no tort and no facts for intentional spoliation | Court: Petition sufficiently pleaded a breach of contract claim; reversed dismissal and remanded for further consideration of that contract claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lundin, 256 So.2d 620 (La. 1972) (framework for policy-based duty analysis in tort law)
- Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp., 530 So.2d 1151 (La. 1988) (discussion of limits on tort recovery and judicial role in defining fault)
- Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La. 2004) (standards for the peremptory exception of no cause of action and pleading sufficiency)
- Temple Community Hosp. v. Superior Court, 976 P.2d 223 (Cal. 1999) (California’s rejection of negligent-spoliation tort for third parties and reasoning on alternative remedies)
- 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228 (La. 1989) (authority on Louisiana negligence/duty principles)