Tridico v. Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company
3:24-cv-00302
M.D. La.Apr 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Melda Tridico sued after an automobile accident in November 2022, naming Knight Transportation, Saia Motor Freight Line, and Allianz Underwriters Insurance as defendants.
- Tridico alleges she was struck by a tractor trailer and that the vehicle's insurer was Allianz.
- The suit was filed in Louisiana state court before August 1, 2024, the effective date of a key amendment to Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute limiting direct actions against insurers.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss Allianz pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the new amendment applies retroactively and bars the direct action against Allianz.
- The central legal question is whether the procedural amendment to the Direct Action Statute applies retroactively to cases filed before its effective date, potentially divesting plaintiffs of existing claims against insurers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of amended Direct Action Statute | Rights vested before amendment, law should not apply retroactively | Amendment is procedural and applies retroactively to pending suits | Amendment does not apply retroactively to divest previously vested rights |
| Nature of Direct Action right | Statute creates substantive, vested right once suit filed | Only a procedural right of action, which does not vest | Filing suit before amendment vests plaintiff’s right under procedural law |
| Constitutional due process implications | Retroactive application would violate due process by removing vested rights | No vested property right exists in procedure; thus, no due process violation | Retroactive application would unconstitutionally divest vested rights |
| Line of cases to follow on retroactivity | Favors Baker/Smith logic (no retroactivity for pending cases) | Favors Howard logic (retroactive application allowable) | Court adopts Baker/Smith approach (no retroactive application for pending suits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Soileau v. Smith True Value and Rental, 144 So. 3d 771 (La. 2013) (Direct Action Statute grants a procedural right, but right vests when suit filed)
- Descant v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 639 So. 2d 246 (La. 1994) (Direct Action Statute provides procedural right, not substantive cause of action)
- Dumas v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 134 So. 2d 45 (La. 1961) (Distinguishes procedural and substantive rights under direct actions)
- Burke v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., 24 So. 2d 875 (La. 1946) (Direct Action Statute interpreted as procedural law)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Highway Ins. Underwriters, 62 So. 2d 828 (La. 1952) (Direct Action Statute’s procedural character)
- Green v. Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co., 24 So. 3d 182 (La. 2009) (Procedural right of action, not a substantive one)
- Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dardar, 145 So. 3d 271 (La. 2014) (Right vests when remedy is invoked via suit filing)
- Walls v. Am. Optical Corp., 740 So. 2d 1262 (La. 1999) (Vested rights protected against retroactive legislation)