Sims v. American Insurance Co.
101 So. 3d 1
La.2012Background
- Sims II involves prescription interruption under La. C.C. art. 3463 after a dismissal with prejudice in Sims I."
- Sims I was filed August 22, 2008 in state court and removed to federal court, where certain defendants were dismissed without prejudice for fraudulent joinder.
- John Sims died October 1, 2008; Jo Ann Sims and Brent Sims substituted as plaintiffs in the federal action.
- On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice in Sims I under Federal Rule 41(a)(1), signed by all parties.
- Sims II and Sims I defendants faced res judicata and prescription defenses; the trial court dismissed Sims II as prescribed, the court of appeal reversed, and this Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether art. 3463 interruption never occurred due to dismissal with prejudice | Sims I interruption remained viable until dismissal; 3463 applies before/after appearance | Interruption ends when first suit dismissed; 3463 amendment broadens timing | Interruption never occurred; second suit prescribed |
| Whether Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice qualifies as a voluntary dismissal under 3463 | Dismissal with prejudice is voluntary under 3463 | Federal Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal resembles settlement, not unilateral voluntary dismissal | Yes, it constitutes a voluntary dismissal under 3463 |
| Effect of Levy v. Stelly and 1999 amendment on interruption rule | Levy remains good law; amendment clarifies timing | Levy is superseded by amendment and later cases | Levy is superseded; 3463 governs with added timing language |
| Role of contemporaneous pendency of Sims I and Sims II in interruption | Second suit filed while first pending interrupts prescription | Interruption ends if first suit dismissed; no viable interruption later | First-suit interruption treated as never occurred; second suit not timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Levy v. Stelly, 277 So.2d 194 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1973) (interruption applies when second suit filed while first pending; later amendments affect)
- Hebert v. Cournoyer Oldsmobile-Cadillac GMC, Inc., 419 So.2d 878 (La. 1982) ( Art. 3463 pre- and post- amendment interpretations)
- Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126 (La. 1987) (precedents interpreting interruption rules)
- Johnson v. City of Baton Rouge ex rel. Baton Rouge Police Dept., 30 So.3d 809 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009) (art. 3463 interpretation; pendency and dismissal effects)
- Williams v. Shaw Group, Inc., 21 So.3d 992 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009) (art. 3463 interpretation; interruption never occurred)
- Baham v. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans, 792 So.2d 85 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (discussion of interruption scope)
- Pierce v. Foster Wheeler Constructors, Inc., 906 So.2d 605 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (settlement-based dismissal; not controlling here)
- Deris v. Lee, 613 So.2d 962 (La. 1993) (relation of multiple suits and interruption)
- Green v. Auto Club Group Ins. Co., 24 So.3d 182 (La. 2009) (Art. 3463 cited in post-amendment context)