Louisiana Law Blog

By Esteban Herrera, Jr.

In the e-discovery world, you need to be ready to make your case for using your proposed keyword search terms.

In the case of Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell, 2012 WL 10496, a dispute between the parties as to what search terms were to be used by the defendants to search for and respond to discovery made its way to the judge. The judge was not happy, and he “advised” the parties “to attempt with more civility to resolve similar discovery disputes in the future through agreement or other means." The defendants wanted to limit the amount of potentially responsive ESI by searching only for exact matches of key search terms. The plaintiffs’ search terms (identified in their discovery requests) were much broader. The defendants argued that using the plaintiffs’ search terms would produce an unreasonable number of irrelevant results. The court rejected the defendants’ argument, finding that the defendants had not submitted evidence to support their contention. In addition, the court held there was no basis for that objection under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found the defendants’ proposal would "fail to produce discoverable ESI simply because of an inexact match in capitalization or phrasing between a search term and the ESI.” The court said “whether information is discoverable under Rule 26(b) does not turn on the existence of an exact match in capitalization in phrasing." The court said the defendants’ proposal would prevent the plaintiff from obtaining discoverable information and was inconsistent with the broad scope of discovery.

This case is another example illustrating how courts do not want to be put into a position of creating keyword search terms for parties. Courts prefer that parties resolve those issues among themselves. But, if you must involve the court, you need to be ready to establish, with evidence, how unreasonable a particular search term can be. The defendants in this case failed to do that.

By Todd Rossi and Mark Mese

Almost everyone knows insurance policies provide a defense and indemnity for insureds, if the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are met. Insureds include named insureds, other insureds (as defined by the policy) or additional insureds as provided by endorsement. However, insurance policies may also provide payment and defense to others who are not insureds under the policies.

Most liability policies provide coverage to the insureds for liability when the insureds have contractually agreed to provide indemnity and/or defense to or party to a contract. A typical example of contractual indemnity coverage can be found in a construction contract to supply labor and materials related to electrical wiring in the construction of a home, office, pipeline or oil rig.
 

By Esteban Herrera, Jr.

Even for a “small company,” the failure to comply with discovery obligations to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) can be dangerous.  The case of Perez v. Vezer Industrial Professionals, Inc. 2011 WL 5975854 (E.D. Cal. 2011) involved a truck accident, but the lawsuit quickly reached the point where the plaintiff sought a default judgment against the defendant for failure to preserve emails and other ESI.  The court in Perez found the defendant had breached its discovery obligations, noting the following:

• Two of the defendant’s executives, including the owner, admitted they made no effort to retrieve potentially relevant ESI from their computers. 
• The court rejected the defendant’s argument that it was a “small company,” that the case was not document intensive, and that most relevant communications took place by phone or in person.   The court said these facts were not valid explanations for the minimal to no effort made by the company to preserve relevant ESI, including documents sent, received, or created by key players.
• According to the court, the fact that one of the key players’ computer crashed was “no excuse” given that the witness admitted he did not backup any of his ESI.  The court reiterated the following warning to lawyers:  “Defense counsel's apparent failure, in this electronic age, to verify with appropriate representatives of their client whether there was an e-mail backup system, cannot be countenanced.”
• The court found the company had “proceeded with business as usual, without making any special effort to retain ESI relevant to this litigation.”

Although the court concluded the death penalty (a default judgment) was inappropriate in the case, the court did award monetary sanctions.  This case is just another example that even small companies must pay attention to their ESI preservation obligations once those obligations are triggered.

By J. Eric Lockridge and Glenn M. Farnet

Louisiana protects corporate directors and officers from liability to shareholders or others when they make decisions in good faith and reasonably believe that their decisions are in the best interest of the organization. This principal, called the “business judgment rule,” gives officers and directors the freedom to take risks and to make decisions without wondering if shareholders or others will attempt to sue them, personally, if a particular decision ultimately results in a loss to the company. The business judgment rule itself is not news; it has been discussed in American case law since at least the 1940s, and is now codified in the statutory law of some states, including Louisiana. The blog-worthy news about the business judgment rule is a December 13, 2011 court decision from a federal court in California in FDIC v. Perry noting that the statutory version of the rule enacted by California’s legislature protects only corporate directors, not officers. You can see the opinion here, and an interesting commentary on the opinion by Kevin LaCroix here.

Unlike California’s law, the Louisiana statute that codifies the business judgment rule, La. R.S. 12:91, provides business-judgment-rule protections to directors and officers of corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies formed in Louisiana. Louisiana provides strong protection to directors and officers who act in good faith and exercise reasonable diligence in making decisions. Louisiana is already attracting digital-media and other high-tech and entertainment-related business from California with the possibility of attractive tax credits, free workforce training, and other incentives. The fact that Louisiana’s corporate law is more management-friendly than California’s is one more factor for businesses to consider when thinking about expanding or relocating to Louisiana.
 

Kean Miller LLP is pleased to announce the release of the ninth edition of the Practical Digest of Louisiana Class Action Decisions.  The digest is produced by Charles S. McCowan, Jr., Bradley C. Myers, Gerald E. Meunier (Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer), and Thomas F. Daley (District Attorney of the 40th Judicial District).  The fifty page book provides a digest of Louisiana class action decisions, classification by subject matter, and classification by certification disposition.

Click here to download  a copy of the digest.  For a hard copy, please email client_services@keanmiller.com

* The digest is a compilation of certain class action decisions and it should not be construed as a complete reflection of the holdings of the cases.

By Katie D. Bell

In The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al., 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), Judge Scheindlin—author of the renowned Zubulake decisions—further develops the boundaries of discovery duties in a lengthy opinion. Although the opinion does not require parties to meet a standard of perfection during discovery, the opinion serves as an important guide that offers concrete rules and potentially burdensome standards that attorneys should heed to avoid sanction.

Writing systematically, Scheindlin initially frames the fundamental concepts underlying the nature and scope of a party’s duty to preserve, collect, review, and produce requested records during discovery:

The first [critical issue] is plaintiffs’ level of culpability-that is, was their conduct of discovery acceptable or was it negligent, grossly negligent, or willful. The second is the interplay between the duty to preserve evidence and the spoliation of evidence. The third is which party should bear the burden of proving that evidence has been lost or destroyed and the consequences resulting from that loss. And the fourth is the appropriate remedy for the harm caused by the spoliation. (1)

By Terry D. McCay and Benn Vincent

Picture this: former wife sues her ex-husband for cutting and selling timber from a co-owned 120-acre timberland tract. The timberland tract was purchased during the couple’s marriage and was community property. As part of a divorce settlement, the ex-couple remained co-owners of the timberland. Thereafter, the ex-husband had the timber cut and sold – and checks for the timber sold were made payable to the then girlfriend (now wife) of the ex-husband. When the former wife found out, she sued the ex-husband, seeking treble damages (among other things), under Louisiana’s so-called “timber piracy” statute.

As a co-owner, is the ex-husband liable to his former wife under Louisiana’s “timber piracy” statute? This was the issue presented to the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case, Sullivan v. Wallace, 2010-0388 (La. 11/30/10), 51 So.3d 702. The Court concluded that he was not, because the “timber piracy” statute did not apply to suits between co-owners.

Maritime attachment is a powerful procedure that allows an aggrieved party to garnish any of the defendant's property located within a particular federal judicial district.  Attachment is especially powerful because the garnished property can be used to ensure satisfaction of a claim, even if the property within the judicial district is not related to the claim that has been filed there.  This right can prove invaluable for securing payment of claims from a foreign defendant who cannot be easily traced down and sued.  This particular species of attachment is unique to admiralty law and is only available to satisfy "admiralty" or "maritime" claims, including contractual obligations that are separable from an non-maritime aspects of a contract. 

By Todd A. Rossi

Does an insurer waive its policy defenses when it breaches its duty to defend?  In Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 211 WL 2591701 (La. July, 2011), the insurer breached its duty to defend by issuing a denial of coverage and withdrawing from the insured’s defense.  The insurer’s action was based on the mistaken belief that its policies contained an exclusionary provision when, in fact, the exclusion was no longer effective.  According to the trial court, breaching the duty to defend resulted in a waiver of the coverage defenses.  The Louisiana Supreme Court concluded to the contrary, differentiating between a breach and a waiver.  Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or power, and occurs when an insurer with knowledge of the facts indicating non-coverage assumes or continues the defense without obtaining a non-waiver agreement to reserve its coverage defenses.  Under those circumstances, the insured is led to believe that the insurer has given up that right and the insured has the right to believe that the insured’s counsel is acting in the insured’s best interest without regard to coverage defenses.  An insurer cannot avoid liability based on a coverage defense if it has defended the insured without a reservation of rights.  To the contrary, a breach of the duty to defend is not a waiver and does not mislead the insured into believing there could be coverage because there is no expressed intent to release its right to deny coverage.  Under such circumstances, waiver principles do not apply.  Consequently, a breach of the duty to defend is not a waiver of policy defenses.

By Matthew C. Meiners

The application of corporate veil piercing theories to limited liability companies is still in its early stages in Louisiana jurisprudence. In Hollowell v. Orleans Regional Hosp. LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit became the first court applying Louisiana law to pierce the veil of a Louisiana limited liability company on an “alter ego basis,” adopting from corporate veil piercing jurisprudence a non-exhaustive list of factors, namely: 1) commingling of corporate and shareholder funds; 2) failure to follow statutory formalities for incorporating and transacting corporate affairs; 3) undercapitalization; 4) failure to provide separate bank accounts and bookkeeping records; and 5) failure to hold regular shareholder and director meetings. 217 F.3d 379, 385-386 (5th Cir. 7/18/00); citing Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., 590 So.2d 1164, 1168 (La. 1991). The court emphasized that the inquiry is in fact a “totality of the circumstances” test, and “courts are not limited to these five factors when invoking the alter ego doctrine.” Id., at 387, citing Riggins, at 1168.

By David K. Nelson

In an arbitration, the parties agree to hire one or more neutral third parties to hear the dispute and issue a ruling.  The parties further agree to abide by that ruling.  If one party fails to do so, the ruling can be enforced by a court of law just as if an actual judgment had been entered.  Some suggest the process is less costly and more efficient than litigation; however, significant rights can be lost under the guise of so called legal efficiency.

By Katie D. Bell

Electronic Discovery, or “E-Discovery”, is not considered the “novel issue” it once was. However, E-Discovery still presents problems that litigants and courts struggle with. Below is a summary of recent Louisiana Federal Court opinions dealing with the issues surrounding E-Discovery.

In Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 184889 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007), the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel. In an unfair competition and trade secret theft action, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a former employee, had stolen various data files. Plaintiff had unsuccessfully requested production of defendant’s laptop and desktop. The Court granted the motion to compel the defendant to produce these two items because they were the most likely places that the data files would be located. The Court did institute protective measures so as to prevent the disclosure of any irrelevant or personal information.
 

By James R. "Sonny" Chastain and Linda Perez Clark

The Louisiana Supreme Court in Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, 2010 W.L. 1631977 (La. 2010) construed the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”) to mean that persons other than business consumers and competitors may sue for alleged violations of the Act. Regardless of the context of the legislation, according to the Supreme Court, the term “any person” means exactly that – any person.

In the action, Cheramie Services, Inc. (“Cheramie”) entered into a contract with Shell to provide personnel to its platforms. Shell placed two Cheramie employees, Kenneth Ward and Kevin Kays, on a platform. Shell paid Cheramie who paid the employees who were placed on these specific platforms. Ward and Kays alternated working fourteen day shifts so one of them was always on the platform. About six months thereafter, Shell stopped making payments to Cheramie and began paying Filco International, Inc. (“Filco”) for the services provided by Kays and Ward. Additionally, Cheramie sent an employee to meet with Shell about filling a position on another platform. The employee met with Shell and was told that if she wanted the position, she would have to work for Filco, because it had submitted the successful bid.
 

By Bradley C. Myers
 

The United States Supreme Court recently resolved conflicts among the Circuit Courts about the citizenship of a corporation for determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (1). This will allow corporations to analyze with more predictable results whether to remove a case to federal court. In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, et al, No. 08-1107 (February 23, 2010) (a unanimous decision, which is unusual in and of itself), the Court decided that when determining a corporation’s citizenship for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the “principal place of business” of the corporation is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”—something that courts have referred to as the “nerve center” of the corporation.

By Jay M. Jalenak, Jr.

The Louisiana Civil Code provides an implied warranty for all things sold.  Specifically, a seller warrants the buyer against all redhibitory vices and defects.  A defect is “redhibitory” if it renders the item so useless or inconvenient that a buyer would not have purchased it or would have purchased it for a lesser price.   Louisiana does not have warranty statutes which are specific to marine products.  The following outline is an overview of Louisiana's warranty statutes in connection with marine products such as boats, personal watercraft, and outboard motors.

By Sonny Chastain

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the standard for a declaratory judgment action in the context of trademark rights. In Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corporation, 567 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2009), Vantage filed civil action seeking declaratory judgment finding that its designed for a new aluminum bottom dump trailer would not infringe on any valid trademark rights of Beall Corporation.  Beall manufacturers and sells an aluminum bottom dump trailer which is protected by a registered trademark.  In early 2006, Vantage began designing its own aluminum bottom dump trailer.  In July 2006, Beall’s vice president sent a letter to Vantage stating that if your company places any trailers into service that violate any of Beall’s trademarks we will pursue legal action to stop the infringement. In response to the letter, Vantage filed a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment that Beall’s trademark is invalid and that the design of Vantage’s trailer did not infringe on any intellectual property rights of Beall’s.

Nearly three years have passed since electronic discovery was formally introduced into the realm of discovery.  The scope of electronic discovery is broad- it includes discovery of “any information that can be stored electronically, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or compilations—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly, or if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.” However, the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) is not without its limitations, thus lending comfort to those old dogs who do not want to learn new tricks. This article is aimed at fleshing out what limitations, if any, exist in the black hole of electronic discovery.

Read the entire article from Around the Bar by Katie D. Bell and reprinted with permission from the Baton Rouge Bar Association. 

Throughout 2004–2007 a housing boom along with a series of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico combined to create a shortage of drywall in the United States.  Needing drywall to build the homes that were much in demand, suppliers turned abroad. Chinese manufacturers stepped in, providing cheap and readily available material.  This influx of Chinese drywall was concentrated in Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi; the states most affected by Hurricanes Wilma, Katrina, and Rita.  Since 2006, it has been estimated by some sources that more than 550 million pounds of drywall have been imported from China.  There are reports that some 100,000 homes could possibly be affected nationwide. 

By G. Trippe Hawthorne

The Louisiana Legislature has adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 185, authored by Representative Tim Burns.  The resolution urges and requests that the Department of Health and Hospitals and the Deptartment of Insurance, in consultation with the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors, investigate the health risks associated with living in homes that contain drywall imported from China, study the potential homeowners insurance coverage issues, including triggers, endorsements, and exclusions to policies that are related to drywall imported from China, and determine whether such material should be identified as a substandard, unsafe building material.  The resolution goes on to request a report of the findings and recommendations of this study to the legislature prior to the convening of the 2010 regular session.

A copy of the enrolled version of the resolution can be seen here: Download file

Beginning at 12:01 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time), on Saturday, June 13, 2009, members of the social networking website, Facebook, will be able to claim usernames to associate with their Facebook accounts and Facebook pages. This will allow Facebook pages to be accessed by using a url such as, http://www.facebook.com/unitedairlines, or something similar.

Facebook is taking certain steps to prevent infringement of intellectual property through “name-squatting.” In connection with this, Facebook is allowing Federally registered trademark holders to prevent the registration of usernames that would infringe their intellectual property rights.

There is a link to the form on Facebook’s Web site if you want to complete the form yourself. You will need the trademark registration number and the exact wording of the trademark as registered.

For more information, or to protect your trademark, please contact Pamela Baxter at pamela.baxter@keanmiller.com (225.389.3761) or Russel Primeaux at russel.primeaux@keanmiller.com (225.382.3454).

By Charles S. McCowan, Jr.

In today's difficult economic climate, franchisors are often faced with a decision to consolidate, not renew or terminate unprofitable franchises.  Generally, franchise agreements have been entered into in better economic times and contain provisions that attempt to minimize adverse economic consequences to the franchisor arising from a non-renewal or termination.  The termination decision often leads to legal challenges involving the validity of such provisions.  These challenges include a determination of whether the termination is permitted by the contract, termination procedures, buy back issues and any damages that flow from the termination or non-renewal.

By Michael O'Brien and Stephen Hanemann

Hurricane Gustav recently wreaked havoc and felled trees throughout the heavily wooded areas of Southeast Louisiana.  As such, many property owners may be concerned who bears the responsibility for a fallen tree. Obviously, if a tree in a homeowner’s yard falls on his house, then that homeowner should contact his insurance agent for assistance in repairing the tree damage. The remainder of this article addresses the issue of tree-owner responsibility when a tree located on the property of one person (the “tree owner”) falls on the property of his neighbor (the “property owner”) damaging the house, car, fence or other property.

by Todd A. Rossi

According to the Louisiana Supreme Court, a commercial general liability policy unambiguously excluded coverage for a contractor’s faulty workmanship. Supreme Services & Specialty Co. Inc. v. Sonny Greer, 958 So.2d 634 (La. 2007). The homeowner instituted legal action claiming that cracks in the slab were the result of faulty and defective design and construction, alleging causes of action based on breach of contract and breach of warranty. Relying on the "work product" exclusion in the policy, the court recognized that it reflected the insurance company’s intent to "avoid the possibility that coverage under a CGL policy will be used to repair and replace the insured’s defective products and faulty workmanship."

by James R. Chastain, Jr.

On March 23, 2007, the Louisiana First Circuit addressed the validity of an arbitration agreement in Lafleur v. Law Offices of Anthony G. Buzbee, 2007 WL 858859 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2007). The opinion has not been released in permanent law reports and is still subject to revision or withdrawal.

The case arises out of a contract between Mr. Lafleur, a Louisiana resident, and his Texas attorneys, Jeffrey M. Stern and the firm of Stern, Miller, and Higdon. Mr. Lafleur retained the Stern defendants to pursue his maritime claim for personal injuries he sustained while traveling on a vessel in navigable waters off the coast of Louisiana. He executed an agreement with the Stern defendants which stated, "Any and all disputes, controversies, claims or demands arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any provisions hereof, the providing of services by the Stern defendants to Mr. Lafleur, or in any way relating to the relationship between the Stern defendants and Mr. Lafleur, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, at law or in equity, for damages or any other relief, made by or on behalf of Mr. Lafleur shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules then in effect with the American Arbitration Association." It also provided "the expense of any arbitration shall be a Case Advance pursuing the claims" and that "Mr. Lafleur understands and acknowledges that Mr. Lafleur is waiving all rights to a trial by jury or a judge."

by Brett N. Brinson

Most commercial leases for multi-tenant properties contain clauses which regulate the tenants' use of the leased premises. Many tenants will require a landlord to grant the tenant the exclusive right to operate a certain business or sell a certain product to avoid competing with other tenants. These provisions are appropriately referred to as exclusive use clauses. For the landlord to satisfy its obligations under an exclusive use clause of one lease, the landlord is required to incorporate provisions in its other leases prohibiting the other tenants from using the leased premises for the restricted purpose. These clauses are commonly referred to as prohibited use clauses. 

by David K. Nelson

Much of the time of a construction lawyer is spent assisting clients in finding solutions to the many problems that befall the typical construction project. These problems range from simple contract preparation and negotiation to the more fact-intensive work of constructive defect litigation, surety claims, liens, and payment issues. Each construction project, no matter how complex or simple, involves the same basic issues:

• What is the scope of work that the parties agreed to?

• What documents or plans define the scope of work?

• How is the contractor to be paid for his work?

• How can the owner be assured that the contractor is doing the work properly?

• What is to be done when there are issues or problems with respect to any of the above?

The job of the construction attorney is to help chart a course through this minefield and ideally resolve issues without judicial intervention.

See the rest of the article here. It is an article of some heft, so give it a few seconds to open.  

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, La. 51:1431, et seq., provides a cause of action for misappropriation of a trade secret. However, it is important to recognize that these are specific terms which must be satisfied in order to trigger the remedies provided in the Act.

Kean Miller is pleased to announce that 12 lawyers, formerly in the Admiralty & Maritime, Construction, and Energy practice areas with Lemle & Kelleher, LLP, have joined the firm in the New Orleans office.

"We are very excited to welcome these distinguished attorneys to our law firm. They are an outstanding resource for our clients. Our offices are located in Louisiana's major port cities --- New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles -- and this esteemed group brings over 150 years of combined experience in maritime issues, admiralty law, marine insurance, oil & gas, drilling and exploration, pipelines, construction, and energy law to our clients." said Gary A. Bezet, managing partner of the 121-lawyer firm.

A recent Third Circuit decision joined the long and growing list of cases supporting the Single Business Enterprise Theory exception to the long standing principle that corporations are separate and distinct legal entities apart from their shareholders and affiliated companies.

The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in Aguillard v. Auction Management Corporation. In this action, defendant Gilmore Auction & Realty Company conducted a public action of certain real estate property. Prior to the auction, a sales brochure was distributed to prospective bidders.

In La. R.S. 23:921, Louisiana law states every contract or agreement or provision thereof by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, of any kind, except as set forth in this Section shall be null and void. It is the Legislature's way of making the general statement that the state of Louisiana wants people working.

By Russel Primeaux

Someone once observed that most car accidents occur within 10 blocks of the driver's home. We see a analogous trend in Intellectual Property "crimes" - i.e. infringement of patents, trademarks, or copyrights; or misappropriation of a trade secret. Intellectual Property (IP) disputes between two parties that are strangers to one another are the exception, not the rule.

By Linda Perez Clark

Very often, contracts prohibit assignment without the other party's consent. If you think you might ever want to assign a contract (bearing in mind that a merger or sale of the business can trigger assignment), then this kind of provision should generally be modified by adding that the other party's consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

By Mark D. Mese

Reproduced with permission from Class Action Action Litigation Report, Vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 795-797 (Nov 11, 2005). Copyright 2005 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033). http://www.bna.com

The damages caused by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama constitute the largest natural disaster in U.S. history. Hurricane Katrina's impact on insurers and their policyholders have already set in motion what will probably be one of the largest legal and public policy storms to hit the United States in modern times. Nowhere will the storm be more evident than in disputes involving wind and water damage coverage.

The eye of the coverage storm is already manifesting itself in coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

By G. Trippe Hawthorne

A recent case out of Louisiana could be big news for general contractors, owners, and insurers. Louisiana's Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court's opinion that an upstream contractor was entitled to insurance coverage for the cost of repairing defective work performed by a subcontractor (Broadmoor Anderson v. National Union Fire Insurance of Louisiana).

By Mark Mese

Hurricane Katrina will undoubtedly go down in history as the worst natural disaster to hit the United States. The current estimated cost to repair damage from Hurricane Katrina caused has reached $50.0 billion, much of which may be covered by insurance. Hurricane Katrina will have enormous impact on policyholders and their insurers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Policyholders will need to act carefully and in some cases promptly to protect their rights under insurance policies providing coverage for environmental claims, business interruption claims, property loss claims, and general liability claims.

Per its website at http://www.laed.uscourts.gov, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has closed until further notice, and has suspended "all deadlines and delays in matters pending before this court...until ordered otherwise."

By Lolly White

In-house counsel who are employed in Louisiana but are not licensed to practice law here have until July 1, 2005 to file an application for limited licensure to practice under the Louisiana Supreme Court's new In-House Counsel Rule.

By Todd A. Rossi

Louisiana courts typically enforce, and broadly construe, contract provisions mandating arbitration to resolve disputes. However, two recent Louisiana appellate court decisions show that arbitration agreements can be avoided.

By Sonny Chastain, Jim Lackie, Todd Rossi and Mark Mese.

Business executives who face commercial lawsuits as plaintiffs or defendants understand the effect litigation has on a business. The following article addresses seven important issues that savvy business owners should be aware of - in the boardroom and in the courtroom - when it comes to commercial litigation.