Robertson v. Sun Life Financial
187 So. 3d 473
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Robertson bought a 10-year annuity from Sun Life in July 2005 and alleged Sun Life had an obligation to make/authorize payments only as directed by him.
- Sun Life issued a $99,999.99 check (Oct. 13, 2005) that Robertson alleges was forged/negotiated without his authorization, resulting in a withdrawal from his annuity account.
- Robertson originally pleaded negligence (tort) against Sun Life and later, in a third amended petition (Mar. 2012), expressly alleged breach of the annuity contract, claiming Sun Life failed to follow industry verification/authentication standards.
- Sun Life moved to dismiss: it first raised prescription (statute of limitations) against the negligence claim and later filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action (arguing the third amended petition asserted only delictual claims and failed to identify a contractual provision breached).
- The trial court sustained Sun Life’s no-cause-of-action exception and dismissed Robertson’s breach‑of‑contract claims with prejudice; Robertson appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the petition, read in plaintiff’s favor, sufficiently pleaded a breach of the annuity contract (including implied contractual duties to verify authorization) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third amended petition states a cause of action for breach of the annuity contract | Robertson alleged Sun Life issued/paid funds without his authorization and breached express or implied annuity duties to verify authorization | Sun Life argued the pleading only alleges delict (negligence), fails to identify any contractual provision breached, and thus fails to state a contract claim | The court held the petition states a viable breach‑of‑contract claim: payment without authorization contradicts the annuity’s obligation to pay as directed, and implied duties may supply the necessary contractual obligations |
| Whether allegations of negligent handling convert the claim into a mere tort that cannot support contract relief | Robertson argued the same facts can give rise to both contractual and tort claims; he specifically pleaded breach of contract based on failure to secure payments | Sun Life argued the allegations are only tortious and not contractual breaches | The court held negligent breach of a contractual obligation can support both contract and tort claims; descriptive words like “reckless” do not convert a contractual claim into only a tort claim |
| Whether failure to plead a specific contract clause is fatal to a contract claim on exception of no cause of action | Robertson relied on the annuity’s nature (pay as directed) and LSA‑C.C. art. 2054 (implied terms) to show a contractual duty to verify authorizations | Sun Life argued plaintiff must point to a specific contractual provision and cannot rely on vague or implied assertions | The court held that an annuity’s fundamental duty (pay only as directed) and implied contractual obligations suffice at the pleading stage; specificity of clause is not required to survive a no‑cause‑of‑action exception |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Denham Springs v. Perkins, 10 So.3d 311 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (defines cause of action and standard for exception of no cause of action)
- Charming Charlie, Inc. v. Perkins Rowe Associates, L.L.C., 97 So.3d 595 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (pleading facts accepted as true on exception of no cause of action)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Sea-Lar Management, Inc., 787 So.2d 1069 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (implied contractual obligations give rise to breach of contract)
- Prestridge v. Bank of Jena, 924 So.2d 1266 (La. App. 3d Cir.) (bank paying on forged instrument breaches contractual obligation to depositor)
- Potter v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Scotlandville, 615 So.2d 318 (La.) (negligent breach of contractual obligation can give rise to both contract and tort actions)
- United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Cargill, Inc., 612 So.2d 783 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (same acts can give rise to contract and tort claims)
- Succession of Rabouin, 9 So.2d 529 (La.) (discussing nature of annuity contracts)
- Gray & Co., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 292 So.2d 829 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (liability may arise from breach of duties assumed in contract)