267 So. 3d 183
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiffs Laurie and Peter Yaukey (on behalf of their children) sued landlord Marian Ballard and insurer Southern Fidelity for alleged mold exposure in a Harahan rental occupied June 2014–May 2015.
- Plaintiffs allege mold (Cladosporium and Trichoderma) from water intrusion caused various medical conditions discovered after a May 2015 mold inspection.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Plaintiffs lack expert proof of general causation (dose sufficient to cause health effects) and specific causation (linking plaintiffs’ conditions to the specific molds).
- Defendants submitted an environmental expert (Feaheny) who inspected the home in Sept. 2015, found no active moisture or visible mold, and reported indoor fungal levels within normal parameters.
- Plaintiffs submitted a competing environmental report (Driskill) showing elevated molds in an AC tape-lift sample but otherwise normal/low indoor air counts, and medical records from Dr. Dennis (not deposed) noting prior mold exposures but not opining causation.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; on supervisory review this court reversed, holding Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of general or specific causation and granted summary judgment for Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs proved general causation (dose sufficient to cause health effects) | Exposure to mold in the rental (Driskill’s findings and medical records) supports that exposure caused harm | No expert evidence establishing exposure at a dose sufficient to cause health effects; medical records do not link conditions to mold | No — Plaintiffs failed to show general causation; summary judgment appropriate for Defendants |
| Whether Plaintiffs proved specific causation (linking conditions to specific mold species) | Medical records and Dr. Dennis’s notes identifying cladosporium and trichoderma imply a link | No treating physician or admissible expert ties plaintiffs’ conditions to the specific molds; Dr. Dennis did not opine causation in records | No — Plaintiffs failed to show specific causation; summary judgment appropriate for Defendants |
| Admissibility/weight of Plaintiffs’ environmental evidence | Driskill’s report showing elevated mold in an AC tape-lift sample creates factual disputes | Defendants’ expert found no active moisture/mold and normal airborne ecology; overall evidence insufficient to support causation | The competing reports do not create a material factual dispute on causation absent expert proof of harmful dose or linkage |
| Whether trial court erred in denying summary judgment | N/A (Plaintiffs argued denial proper) | Trial court misapplied summary judgment standards given Plaintiffs’ lack of causation evidence | Trial court erred; appellate court grants supervisory writ and reverses, enters summary judgment for Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Breaux v. Fresh Start Properties, L.L.C., 78 So.3d 849 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2011) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Stogner v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 254 So.3d 1254 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2018) (summary judgment burden-shifting under La. C.C.P. art. 966 explained)
- Watters v. Dept. of Social Services, 15 So.3d 1128 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (elements required in mold personal injury cases)