Storer v. Crown Cork & Seal, 5:14-cv-02488

Decedent Bud Storer, who ran Storer Equipment Company, died in 2013 from mesothelioma; his widow and four adult children (Plaintiffs) sued Trane and others alleging tort liability for asbestos exposure and later added claims for economic damages tied to the Company.
The Company had a franchise agreement with Trane that Trane terminated in 2014 after Bud Storer’s death; Plaintiffs claim lost company revenues and lost shareholder distributions as part of loss of support and survival damages.
Plaintiffs pleaded negligence, strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation (intentional tort), and battery (intentional tort); economic damages were first expressly pleaded in the amended complaint.
Trane moved for partial summary judgment seeking to bar Plaintiffs from recovering economic damages for company losses, arguing (1) no pleaded cause of action supports such damages, (2) economic losses to the company are not compensable in Louisiana wrongful death/survival actions, and (3) the franchise termination conformed to the agreement.
Plaintiffs argued loss of support and loss of earnings claims encompass the alleged lost company income and that the amount and scope of damages are questions for the factfinder.
The Court denied Trane’s motion, holding that whether company income is part of loss of earnings/support is a factual question unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recoverability of company economic losses as part of wrongful death/survival damages	Loss of support and loss of earnings include lost company income and shareholder losses	Economic damages for company losses are not pled or compensable as a matter of law in these actions	Denied — compensability depends on factfinder’s determination of proximate cause and measure of loss
Sufficiency of pleadings to support economic damages	Amended complaint adds economic damages tied to loss of support and company revenues	Plaintiffs did not plead a contract or other claim that would warrant economic damages for the Company	Denied — lack of a contract claim bars breach relief, but tort damages for loss of earnings/support remain a factual inquiry
Whether franchise termination forecloses damages	Plaintiffs claim termination caused lost company revenues tied to the death	Trane argues termination complied with the franchise and therefore yields no damages	Denied as a summary ruling — contract compliance is not resolved here; causation and damages are factual issues
Appropriateness of summary judgment on these damage issues	Plaintiffs contend damages questions are factual and require jury resolution	Trane seeks a legal ruling excluding a category of economic damages before trial	Denied — court cannot resolve contested factual questions of causation/measure at summary judgment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (discusses summary judgment burdens and procedures)
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (nonmovant must designate specific facts to show genuine dispute)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standards for rejecting speculative or metaphysical assertions at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (evidence of nonmovant to be believed; inferences drawn in their favor)
Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 577 (court must review facts drawing inferences for opposing party)
Broussard v. Med. Protective Co., 952 So. 2d 818 (La. Ct. App. 2007) (loss of earnings and loss of support compensable in survival/wrongful death contexts)
Aldredge v. Moses, 595 So. 2d 379 (La. Ct. App. 1992) (determination of actual damages is a question of fact)