Thelma Aisola v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
180 So. 3d 266
La.2015Background
- Homeowners in St. Bernard Parish sued Louisiana Citizens for Hurricane Katrina claims originally filed in 2009 and amended in 2013 to allege they were putative members of several Katrina-related class actions (Orrill, Oubre, Press, Christenberry, etc.).
- Plaintiffs relied on La. C.C.P. art. 596 to argue that putative class membership suspended prescription of their claims.
- Citizens pleaded exceptions of prescription and lis pendens, arguing the individual suits were second-filed because identical claims were pending in earlier class actions.
- The trial court denied both exceptions, reasoning the plaintiffs were not named class representatives and thus there was no identity of parties for lis pendens.
- The Supreme Court granted review and considered whether lis pendens applies when plaintiffs are putative class members but not named or joined in the first-filed class actions.
- The Court reversed the trial court, holding lis pendens applies to the plaintiffs’ claims that overlap with the Oubre, Orrill, Press, and Christenberry class actions and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lis pendens bars individual suits when plaintiffs are putative (not named/joined) members of earlier class actions | Putative class members are not parties; no identity of parties for lis pendens; they needed class-member status only to suspend prescription | Putative class membership means a judgment in the class action would be conclusive under art. 597, so lis pendens applies and second suits should be dismissed | Lis pendens applies: a class judgment would be res judicata as to putative members, so the individual suits overlapping Orrill, Oubre, Press, and Christenberry are barred pending resolution of those class actions |
| Whether settlements or class exclusions in some relied-on suits remove the class actions from lis pendens applicability | Plaintiffs: settlement exclusions or settlement-class definitions exclude them and therefore prevent lis pendens application | Citizens: settlement-class definitions do not negate that the underlying class actions remain pending and could produce conclusive judgments binding putative members | Court: settlement provisions that exclude certain settlement-class members do not prevent the underlying class action from being pending or its judgment from being conclusive against putative class members |
| Whether the relied-on class actions remain pending for lis pendens purposes | Plaintiffs: some relied-on actions have settlements or abandonment so they are not pending | Citizens: the state class actions remain pending (certified or awaiting resolution) and therefore satisfy lis pendens’ pending-suit requirement | Court: the Orrill, Oubre, Press (certified, with settlements not dispositive) and Christenberry (not finally resolved) remain pending; lis pendens requirement satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckworth v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 125 So.3d 1057 (La. 2012) (judgment in class action is conclusive as to all class members)
- Elfer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 811 So.2d 892 (La. 2002) (lis pendens and res judicata apply to putative class members whether joined or not)
- Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc., 703 So.2d 542 (La. 1997) (purpose of class actions is to bind all similarly situated persons given adequate notice)
- Ansardi v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 111 So.3d 460 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (relevant precedent for plaintiffs’ amendment and class-membership allegations)
- Quinn v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 118 So.3d 1011 (La. 2012) (filing an individual suit does not constitute an effective opt-out of a class action)
- Harris v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 164 So.3d 216 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (applied lis pendens to insureds with claims identical to those in pending class actions)