Robinson v. Wayne & Beverly Papania & Pyrenees Investments, LLC
207 So. 3d 566
| La. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Wayne and Beverly Papania built a new home; subcontractor sued them and general contractor Pyrenees Investments, LLC; Papanias filed third-party claims against Pyrenees and its sole member Samuel C. LeBlanc, Jr.
- Papanias amended to allege defective work, remedial and collateral damages, and that LeBlanc was alter ego of Pyrenees and made inducement misrepresentations (licensing and insurance).
- Shortly before trial, Pyrenees and LeBlanc filed peremptory exceptions (no cause of action and peremption) and a summary-judgment motion asserting the New Home Warranty Act (NHWA) supplied the sole remedy and the Papanias failed to give required statutory notice.
- Trial court: sustained no-cause exception dismissing claims not cognizable under NHWA, sustained peremption as to LeBlanc for certain NHWA warranties, and granted summary judgment dismissing remaining NHWA claims.
- On appeal the court reversed the no-cause ruling (permitting breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory-violation claims to proceed), reversed the summary judgment (factual issues on NHWA notice), but affirmed dismissal of Papanias’ NHWA claims against LeBlanc under the one- and two-year warranty peremption periods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims outside the NHWA (breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, statutory violations) were precluded by NHWA exclusivity | Papanias: NHWA does not preclude independent claims (fraud in inducement, negligent misrep., statutory licensing violations, breach for unfinished work) | Pyrenees/LeBlanc: La. R.S. 9:3150 makes NHWA the exclusive remedy for home-construction defects | Court: NHWA is exclusive only for claims "relative to warranties and redhibitory defects"; Papanias stated viable, distinct claims (fraud in inducement, negligent misrep., breach for failure to complete) so dismissal was improper |
| Whether Papanias stated a breach-of-contract claim despite alleging defects | Papanias: contract was terminated; damages include costs to secure completion and unmet expectations | Defendants: NHWA covers defective workmanship; breach claim is precluded where damages relate to construction defects | Court: Allegations that contract was terminated and plaintiffs incurred increased costs suffice to state a breach claim tied to builder's failure to complete; reversal of dismissal as to breach |
| Whether fraud/ negligent misrepresentation claims are barred by NHWA exclusivity | Papanias: misrepresentations induced contract formation (license, insurance); such claims are not "relative to home construction" and are recoverable outside NHWA | Defendants: La. R.S. 9:3150 precludes other remedies; restitution/damages would overlap NHWA | Court: Fraud in inducement and negligent misrep. relate to formation, not construction defects, and are permissible outside NHWA; fraud claim survives |
| Whether plaintiffs provided the statutorily required NHWA notice (summary judgment) | Papanias: evidence (termination letter, Mr. Papania deposition, LeBlanc testimony acknowledging complaints) shows actual notice or certified mailing and opportunity to cure | Defendants: Plaintiffs did not produce definitive proof of written certified/registered notice within statutory period | Held: Genuine factual disputes exist (actual verbal notices, certified-mail receipt with illegible date, testimony about complaints) — summary judgment improper |
| Whether NHWA claims against LeBlanc perempted for 1- and 2-year warranties | Papanias: adding LeBlanc in 2009 preserved claims | Defendants: Peremptive NHWA periods expired before LeBlanc was added (home occupied ~May 2007) | Court: Peremption extinguished those NHWA claims against LeBlanc for one- and two-year warranties; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (function and limits of exception of no cause of action)
- Stutts v. Melton, 130 So.3d 808 (La. 2013) (fraud claims not necessarily "relative to home construction" and may survive NHWA exclusivity)
- Siragusa v. Bordelon, 195 So.3d 100 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (distinguishing breach-of-contract vs NHWA remedies where damages relate to completion)
- Carter v. Duke, 921 So.2d 963 (La. 2006) (policy and purpose of NHWA notice requirement to permit builder to cure)
- Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 837 So.2d 1207 (La. 2003) (de novo review for exceptions of no cause of action)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (summary judgment appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact)