Soileau v. Smith True Value & Rental, 144 So. 3d 771

Plaintiff Soileau was injured at work when a front-end loader detached from a John Deere tractor and struck her leg in November 2007.
Plaintiff sued Deere, Smith’s Hardware (the Smiths), Hartford, and others for damages in a five-day jury trial in October 2010.
In May 2009, Soileau, Hartford, and the Smiths entered a high/low settlement: $340,000 upfront and a liability cap of $2,500,000 for settling defendants after credits.
On October 13, 2010, during trial, plaintiff verbally moved to dismiss the Smiths and their company from the suit in the jury’s presence, stating no damages were sought against them personally.
Hartford later moved for a directed verdict and raised a no-right-of-action exception, both denied, and the jury returned a verdict awarding Soileau approximately $9.43 million in total damages.
The appellate court reversed Hartford’s no-right-of-action exception and dismissed Hartford; the supreme court reversed that reversal and remanded for the remaining issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of 'brought' in the Direct Action Statute	Brought means commenced; suit against insurer alone is the trigger for the six exceptions.	Brought should be read broadly to include ongoing actions, even after insured dismissal.	'Brought' means commenced; six exceptions apply only when suit is against insurer alone.
Effect of dismissal of insureds on insurer's direct action	Dismissal of insureds does not extinguish plaintiff's right to proceed against insurer under the Direct Action Statute.	Policy language and the direct action mechanism require dismissal of insureds to extinguish the insurer's liability.	A direct action against the insurer can continue despite dismissal of the insureds when the action was commenced against both.
Effect of settlement terms on continuing action	Settlement cap and related terms did not bar continued action against Hartford for the insurer's obligation.	Settlement terms cap liability and indicate the insureds’ liability, potentially extinguishing insurer liability.	Settlement intent did not extinguish Hartford's obligation; plaintiff may pursue insurer to the extent covered by the policy.

Green v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 24 So.3d 182 (La. 2009) (direct action statute governs insurer liability and procedural rights)
Descant v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 639 So.2d 246 (La. 1994) (direct action framework and solidary liability considerations)
Rollins v. Richardson, 833 So.2d 921 (La. 2002) (settlement effect on solidary obligations and insurer duties)
Dukes v. Delaware, 40 So.3d 1231 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2010) (renunciation of solidarity and reservation of rights in settlements)
Ortego v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 689 So.2d 1358 (La. 1997) (extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation when necessary to determine scope)