Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
2011 La. LEXIS 604
La.2011Background
- Hurricane Katrina damaged Taranto, Coleman, and Coleman, Jr.'s home; they insured with LCPIC, and demanded policy limits in 2006.
- Louisiana enacted Acts 739 and 802 extending hurricane claim deadlines and the insurer extended its own suit period to Sept. 4, 2007.
- Class actions Buxton and Chalona against LCPIC were filed Aug. 25, 2006, naming plaintiffs as putative class members in Katrina-related claims.
- Trial court dismissed for prescription; appellate court held prescription was interrupted by the pending class actions.
- The Supreme Court held that filing of a class action suspends liberative prescription under Art. 596, and suspension resumes when notice issues, preserving timely claims.
- Act 739/802 extend, but do not convert, contractual limitations into peremption; contractual one-year limits remain subject to suspension rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does class-action tolling suspend prescription? | Taranto argues class actions interrupted prescription for all putative class members. | LCPIC contends contract-term limitations fix an immovable window not tolled by class actions. | Yes, prescription is suspended for putative class members. |
| Are Acts 739 and 802 peremptive or subject to interruption? | Acts widen the window but are not a peremptive bar; suspension still applies. | Acts create a hard, peremptive deadline that cannot be tolled. | Acts 739/802 are not peremptive; they allow contractual extension but remain tollable by Article 596. |
| Is the policy's one-year limitation a statutory prescriptive period or a contractual restriction? | The one-year clause operates within the statutory framework, not as a true contract bar. | The clause is a contractual limitation exempt from statutory prescription rules. | The one-year limit is a prescriptive period subject to interruption/suspension; it cannot be opt-out. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitts v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 4 So.3d 107 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (class actions interrupted prescription for putative class members)
- Katz v. Allstate Insurance Co., 917 So.2d 443 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2005) (class action tolling not extends contractual prescription)
- Lila, Inc. v. Underwriters At Lloyd's, London, 994 So.2d 139 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (contractual limitation not subject to interruption)
- Tracy v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co., 61 So. 687 (La. 1913) (law prescribes limitation; interruption applies to statutory periods)
- E.L. Burns Co., Inc. v. Cashio, 302 So.2d 297 (La. 1974) (antagonistic view on contracting to extend prescription)
- State v. All Property and Casualty Ins. Carriers, 937 So.2d 313 (La. 2006) (courts sustain statutory extensions to prescriptive periods)
- Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 131 (La. 1977) (interruption principles for class actions)