Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc.
209 So. 3d 903
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Class of medical providers sued Executive Risk and Homeland under La. R.S. 22:1269 and related Louisiana PPO statutes, alleging CorVel failed to give statutorily required notice of billing discounts.
- Executive Risk issued claims-made E&O policies covering CorVel from 1999–2005; Homeland issued policies starting October 31, 2005.
- The class obtained summary judgment (coverage) against Executive Risk and settled with Executive Risk while preserving claims against Homeland.
- The trial court later granted the class’s motion for summary judgment against Homeland on the coverage issue; Homeland appealed.
- Homeland argued (1) issue preclusion/res judicata based on the Executive Risk judgment, (2) judicial estoppel because the class took inconsistent positions to win two summary judgments, and (3) that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding Homeland is a different party with a different policy, judicial estoppel did not apply, and Homeland’s policy covered the class claims because earlier asserted 2005 claims were not “Related Claims” that would shift the earliest claim date to Executive Risk’s period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior judgment against Executive Risk precludes coverage claim against Homeland under res judicata | The earlier judgment establishes coverage for the class such that Homeland should also be precluded from denying coverage | The Executive Risk judgment is preclusive and bars the class from obtaining a contrary coverage determination against Homeland | No — res judicata does not apply; Homeland is a different party with a different policy and there is no identity of parties or same transaction preclusion |
| Whether plaintiffs should be estopped from taking a different coverage position against Homeland (judicial estoppel) | Plaintiffs may assert coverage under Homeland’s separate policy; their position is consistent with different policy language | Plaintiffs took an inconsistent position to obtain two contradictory summary judgments and should be estopped | No — judicial estoppel not applied; the positions involved different contracts and did not unfairly prejudice Homeland |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on coverage under Homeland’s policy | The class argued Homeland’s policy definitions and claims timing demonstrate coverage (2006 claim was made during Homeland’s period) | Homeland argued earlier 2005 demands/worker’s comp claims constituted the first Related Claim, shifting the single-claim date to Executive Risk’s period and defeating coverage | No genuine factual dispute; Homeland’s policy excludes worker’s compensation and the 2005 items were not covered/related claims, so Homeland’s policy covers the class claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (elements for res judicata/issue preclusion under La. R.S. 13:4231)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (factors guiding judicial estoppel analysis)
- Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 991 So.2d 445 (La. 2008) (judicial estoppel is equitable and discretionary; discusses New Hampshire v. Maine)
- Crabtree v. State Farm Ins. Co., 632 So.2d 736 (La. 1994) (insurance policy interpretation principles)