Louisiana Law Blog

By Barrye P. Miyagi

The Medicare laws have undergone significant changes. With the relatively new reporting regulations and the focus on compliance, litigators must implement new procedures in their practice. Many companies are establishing guidelines to obtain information needed to comply with the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP”) and the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (“MMSEA”).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) is responsible for oversight of the Medicare program. While the CMS has published information to guide the parties, there is room for interpretation of many of the guidelines and, in some instances, there are no guidelines to assist the parties.

This white paper is designed to provide parties involved in toxic tort liability suits with knowledge of the key provisions of the MSP and the MMSEA. The white paper focuses on the practical aspects of obtaining information needed for compliance, common misconceptions and risk avoidance. The document also discusses the significance of cases involving incidents that pre-date the December 5, 1980 MSP, practical aspects of determining when the December 5, 1980 policy may be applied, and recent guidance from the CMS on that issue.

Download the white paper.

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 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 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 Linda S. Akchin

On Friday, April 9, 2010, the Louisiana Supreme Court (1) reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules (2), in which the Circuit Court held that

(1) a royalty interest vendors’ oral assertion to a mineral lessee that the royalty interest vendee fraudulently inserted a prescription interruption provision in the royalty deed, and that therefore the royalty interest had reverted back to the vendors, is not a reasonable basis for the mineral lessee to initiate a concursus proceeding to determine the ownership of royalty payments because the innocent third party purchaser of the royalty interests is protected by the public records doctrine; and

(2) the mineral lessee is liable not only for the royalties paid into the registry of the court, but also for an additional sum equal to double the amount of royalties paid into the registry of the court, as damages.

The Third Circuit decision represented a gross departure from well-established Louisiana law relating to concursus proceedings, upon which the oil and gas industry, and mineral royalty payors in particular, have long relied in order to avoid the risk of multiple liability and the vexation of multiple lawsuits, as well as to avoid a penalty for nonpayment of royalties pursuant to Mineral Code provisions allowing a penalty under certain circumstances.

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.

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

by Christopher J. Dicharry

1. If you will be contacting any person associated with a state agency or a state board on behalf of your company or any other person, you may be an Executive Branch Lobbyist. Contacting any staff members to advocate anything related to the agency is lobbying. Certain activities by healthcare professionals are not considered lobbying. Additionally, (i) contributions to the cost of certain social functions in connection with meetings of national or regional organizations of executive branch officials and (ii) the cost of meals and refreshment consumed by an executive branch official which is incidental to a speech or panel discussion involving the official are exempt from the Executive Branch Lobbying law.
 

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 Bradley C. Myers

In a major victory for business interests involved in maritime operations and what many commentators say is a harbinger of things to come, the United States Supreme Court recently struck down the $2.5 billion punitive damage award against ExxonMobil in a case involving claims for individual economic damages filed by landowners, native Alaskans and commercial fisherman following the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez. See Exxon Shipping Company, et al v. Grant Baker, et al, 554 U.S. ____(June 25, 2008).  The Court determined that the upper limit for punitive damages in maritime cases was a 1:1 ratio to compensatory damages and sent the case back to the appellate court to reduce the punitive damage award to $507.5 million which was the amount of compensatory damages (those agreed upon in settlement and those awarded following trial) that the trial court determined were relevant for purposes of determining punitive damages.

by Laura L. Hart

        On May 19, 2008, OSHA Directive Number 08-03 became effective. That directive provides the criteria by which OSHA will conduct the 2008 Site-Specific Targeting (“SST-08”) plan. OSHA’s SST program is the main programmed inspection plan for non-construction workplaces that have 40 or more employees.

       OSHA’s SST-08 plan has three listings of “establishments” that will be targeted. The focus of the agency’s unannounced comprehensive safety inspections under SST-08 are approximately 3,800 high-hazard workplaces contained on OSHA’s Primary List.  The workplaces on the Secondary List and Tertiary List will only be inspected pursuant to SST-08 if all of the workplaces on the Primary List are inspected. 

by James R. Chastain, Jr.

In New Investment Properties, L.L.C. v. ABC Company, et al, 2007 W.L. 4305464 (4^TH Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals addressed the range of personal jurisdiction. Like that of a shepherd’s crook, the court exercised personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. Plaintiffs, New Investment Properties, L.LC. and Creek Apartments Team, L.L.C. (“Creek Apartments) are both Louisiana corporations and the owners of two apartment complexes in New Orleans. Defendant, R. P. Beckendorf, is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles. It is an independent insurance agency which obtained flood and wind policies for an apartment complex. The policies were delivered to the Champion Group, Inc., which is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles.   The two managers of the plaintiffs are both residents of California, who are also managers of the Champion Group in California.

by Laura L. Hart

2007 La. Acts No. 361 amended Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 561 to provide an exception to the abandonment period for cases filed before the landfall of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The amendment extends to five (5) years the abandonment period for cases that meet the requirements set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 561(2). Article 561 states, in pertinent part, as follows:

A.       (1) An action, except as provided in Subparagraph (2) of this Paragraph, is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step in its prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three years, unless it is a succession proceeding:

            (a) Which has been opened;  

            (b) In which an administrator or executor has been appointed; or

            (c) In which a testament has been probated.

by Dean P. Cazenave

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal recently held that the single business enterprise theory may apply in a breach of contract case.

The single business enterprise theory, a jurisprudential theory under which one or more entities affiliated with another entity may be held liable for such other entity’s debts or liabilities, was first recognized in Louisiana by the First Circuit Court of Appeal in 1991 in the case of Green v Champion Insurance Co. This theory is somewhat unique to Louisiana and greatly erodes traditional corporate laws which generally shield shareholders and affiliated entities from the debts or liabilities of a corporation or other entity.   Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has not expressly adopted the single business enterprise theory, it has had opportunities to repudiate or criticize such a theory but has not done so; and as a result, other appellate courts in Louisiana have continued to invoke the theory.

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 Amy D. Berret

GENERAL DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS

Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1306: requires employers to notify the Office of Workers’ Compensation within ten (10) days of actual knowledge of an injury resulting in death or lost time in excess of one week after the injury. This rule applies even if no claim for workers’ compensation benefits has been filed. 

Ø    The form generally used for this purpose is a Form 1007 Employer First Report of Injury/Illness (a copy of which is attached for your ready reference).

Ø    If an employer elects not to use the Form 1007, he must provide, at the minimum, the following information: (1) The name, address, and business of the employer; (2)  The name, Social Security number, street, mailing address, telephone number, and occupation of the employee; (3) he cause and nature of the injury or death; (4) The date, time, and the particular locality where the injury or death occurred; (5) The wages, as defined in R.S. 23:1021(10), the worker was earning at the time of the injury.

Ø    All information and records submitted pursuant to this Section shall be confidential and privileged, shall not be public records, and shall not be subject to subpoena. However, such information or records may be used to compile statistical data wherein the identity of the individual or employer is not disclosed.

by Eric Lockridge

Recent legislation significantly expands the scope of Louisiana’s work product privilege to include digital photographs, digital video and audio recordings, and other electronically stored information created by an attorney. Act 140 of the 2007 Regular Legislative Session (H.B. 203) (“the Act”) became effective earlier this month.  Among other provisions, the Act expands the scope of Louisiana’s work product privilege to include “electronically stored information.” (For a general discussion of the Act, click here.

Louisiana’s work product privilege is codified at Article 1424 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. Article 1424(A) previously protected from discovery a “writing obtained or prepared by the adverse party, his attorney, surety, indemnitor, or agent in anticipation of litigation. . .,” subject to certain conditions. The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted that language to protect only a “writing,” and to provide no protection to other tangible things, in an attorney’s file, such as audio tapes, video tapes, or photographs. See, e.g., Landis v. Morreau, 2000-1157, p. 9 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So.2d 691, 697.

by Eric Lockridge

Several provisions in Louisiana’s Code of Civil Procedure were amended in the last legislative session, and those changes are now in effect. One change made by the new law, Act 140 of the 2007 Regular Legislative Session (H.B. 203) (hereinafter, “Act 140”), is that the Code of Civil Procedure now specifically provides for the discovery of electronically stored information (hereinafter, “ESI”). Act 140 modifies Articles 1460-62 of the Code of Civil Procedure to explain how ESI should be requested and produced. The changes are intended to make Louisiana civil procedure more similar to federal procedure with regard to the discovery of ESI.   There are still many differences, however, between federal procedure and the changes made by Act 140. The Act did not copy and paste the recent federal rule changes regarding ESI (discussed here http://www.louisianalawblog.com/general-litigation-electronic-evidence-update-for-inhouse-counsel.html into our state Code of Civil Procedure. 

by Glenn M. Farnet

On January 24, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Final Rule entitled Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products, 71 Fed. Reg. 3922 (Jan. 24, 2006). In the now-famous preamble to that Final Rule, the FDA stated its view that “… under existing preemption principles, FDA approval of labeling under the act, whether it be in the old or new format, preempts conflicting or contrary State law.”   The preamble contains a detailed explanation of why the FDA believes that allowing certain state tort law claims for failure to warn would conflict with and stand as an obstacle to achievement of the full objectives and purposes of Federal labeling requirements for pharmaceutical and biologic products.   The FDA explains that it makes labeling decisions based on “a comprehensive scientific evaluation of the products’s risks and benefits under the conditions of the use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling.”   The FDA further explains:

by Eric Lockridge

Many businesses have come to realize the value of having a document retention/ destruction policy as part of their regular operations. A policy that is well planned and consistently followed will help a business increase its efficiency, reduce its document storage costs, and protect itself from allegations that particular documents were destroyed because the company did not want them to become public in litigation.

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 Erich P. Rapp

During a presentation at the Defense Research Institute’s Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar in New Orleans on Friday March 9, 2007, Dr. Pamela Williams of ChemRisk, Inc. indicated that she was preparing to publish a study on the potential for exposure to benzene from products containing trace (less than 0.1%) levels of benzene. Her study will likely conclude that measured airborne concentrations of benzene during the handling or use of petroleum-derived products in the United States have typically not exceeded workplace standards since at least the early 1980's. The Williams’ study will also likely conclude that indoor air modeling shows that workplace exposures are likely to be minimal during the application of products containing trace levels of benzene. Finally, the Williams study will likely conclude that petroleum-derived products containing trace levels of benzene are not expected to produce 8-hour TWA airborne concentrations that exceed current regulatory standards under typical product use scenarios.

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.  

by Erich P. Rapp

A case now pending in federal court in New Orleans may have an important impact on potential claims against the federal government for coastal land loss in Louisiana. 

Judge Duval has set the claims of numerous plaintiffs against the Army Corps of Engineers for trial beginning September 8, 2008. Plaintiffs contend the Corps contributed to flooding of their property in St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

by G. Trippe Hawthorne

A recent case out of Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit, Meyers v City of New Orleans, 2005-1142 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/17/06) 932 So.2d 719, writ den., 2006-1530 (La. 9/29/06) --- So.2d ----, 2006 WL 2820822, found that a “settled” lawsuit had abandoned before the settlement was completed, leaving the plaintiff with no case to settle.

Louisiana civil procedure generally provides that a lawsuit is “abandoned” if no party takes a step in the prosecution or defense of the case for a period of three years. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561 and Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,  2000-3010, p. 5-6 (La. 5/15/01); 785 So.2d 779, 784 (La.,2001). Acts in the prosecution or defense of the case sufficient to interrupt abandonment typically require some positive action by a party reflected in the Court’s records and directed toward defending or prosecuting the case on the merits. The abandonment is self-effectuating, meaning that it occurs without any need for action by the Court or a party, but a party is entitled to an Order recognizing the abandonment and dismissing the case.

From Naked Ownership (hey, it's a genuine Louisiana legal phrase), a law blog maintained by Al Robert, Jr., Ernest Svenson, Raymond Ward, and Todd Slack, comes this post on changes to the Uniform Rules governing Louisiana Courts of Appeal. A copy of the new rules can be viewed here. 

As e-discovery continues its relentless assault upon stodgy traditions, it would behoove one to consider the Guidelines for State Trial Courts Regarding Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information, prepared by the Conference of Chief Justices (according to its website, their membership includes "the highest judicial officer of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands."

by Tara E. Montgomery

The Louisiana legislature amended Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4207 to provide additional time delays in which judges must render a judgment in cases taken under advisement and rule on applications for a new trial, as well restrictions regarding the manner in which the judgment must be rendered. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana – September 8, 2006– Fifteen partners from Baton Rouge-based Kean Miller Hawthorne D’Armond McCowan & Jarman, LLP (Kean Miller) will be listed in the 2007 edition of The Best Lawyers in America (Woodward White, Inc.). Published biennially since 1983, The Best Lawyers in America is widely regarded as an important referral guide to the legal profession in the United States. The list is compiled through an exhaustive peer-review survey in which thousands of the top lawyers in the U.S. confidentially evaluate their professional peers.  

The referral guide is subscribed to by more than 4,000 of the leading law firms in the U.S. and abroad, and by more than 1,000 of the world’s largest corporations. Because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, Best Lawyers is a reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals.  

by Tara E. Montgomery

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1916 no longer applies strictly to jury cases. House Bill No. 414, effective August 15, 2006, amended Article 1916 to apply to judge and jury trials, and to establish time delays for the preparation and execution of judgments, including contradictory motions, exceptions and compromise agreements. (Link to House Bill)

Former Article 1916 made a distinction between jury trials in which a general verdict was reached and those resulting in a special verdict. In the case of a general verdict, the judge was required to sign a judgment within three days of the verdict. For special verdicts, the judge was allowed unspecified time for deliberation, but was required to sign a judgment. 

Amended and reenacted Article 1916 extends the three day rule for judges in jury trials and no longer makes a distinction between general and special verdicts. Regardless of the nature of the verdict rendered, judges must prepare and sign a judgment within ten days of the jury’s verdict. Alternatively, amended Article 1916 gives judges express authority to order counsel for a party to submit a judgment for signature by the court within ten days of the verdict.

by J. Eric Lockridge

In-house attorneys and their outside counsel know that the discovery provisions in the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are out of touch with modern business practice in the age of electronic documents and data. The United States Supreme Court recently approved amendments to the Rules that will help bring the discovery rules regarding electronic data into the modern era. Absent Congressional action, these amendments will go into effect on December 1, 2006. This blog article summarizes the much-discussed “safe harbor” provision and other changes that should make life a little easier for corporate counsel who must balance the risk of litigation with the realities of modern business.

In Hamilton v. Winder, 2006-0994 (La. 6/16/06), 2006 WL 1669429, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the district court had the power under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1631(A) to "bump" a consistently tardy juror in the middle of trial and replace him with an alternate. Although Article 1769 states that "Alternate jurors...shall replace jurors who...become unable or disqualified to perform their duties," the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not have to determine that the sluggish juror in question was either "unable" or "disqualified" to perform his duties.

by Robert E. Dille and Barrye Panepinto Miyagi

The 18th Judicial District Court in Louisiana (Iberville, West Baton Rouge and Pointe Coupee Parishes) has requested, and received, an ad hoc judge appointment. Judge Thomas W. Tanner has been appointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to handle all asbestos cases. Ad hoc judges are used occasionally in asbestos cases and have been appointed for virtually all cases in the 19th Judicial District (East Baton Rouge Parish) and 4th Judicial District Court (Ouachita and Morehouse Parishes).

A copy of the order can be accessed here.
Download file

by A. Edward Hardin, Jr.

The Louisiana Senate passed SB 700 by a vote of 20-18. SB 700 would set a state-wide minimum wage of $6.15 or $1.00 higher than the existing federal minimum wage. As written, SB 700 has several exceptions. The bill now goes to the House of Representatives for consideration. According to a story in the Baton Rouge daily, The Advocate, if SB 700 passes the House, Louisiana would join eighteen other states that have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage.

In Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 2006 WL 286009 (E.D. La. 2006), a mass tort class action arising from a crude oil spill in Chalmette during Hurricane Katrina, Judge Fallon certified a class, and Murphy appealed that ruling. Pending the appeal, having denied a stay, Judge Fallon ordered notice to the class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs opposed affording an opt-out provision in the notice, on the basis that the definition of the class could be modified by the Fifth Circuit, thus requiring follow-up notice, but Judge Fallon thought it important to inform potential class members of the consequences of opting out immediately, in view of Murphy's ongoing settlement program.

In Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb, 2006 WL 335602 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.), Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's certification of a Prempro (conjugated estrogen and progestin) medical monitoring class. The court of appeal focused upon the "highly individualistic" nature of causation determination, which depended on individual characteristics and risk factors of the claimant, the dosage, the duration of consumption, other medications being taken, and knowledge of risks. The court also found that these considerations required individual customization of any medical monitoring plan. The evolution in what Wyeth knew, and warned about, over a 10-year period also strongly militated against class certification.

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.

by Todd A. Rossi

Insureds have the burden of first establishing insurance coverage. Typically, that involves providing evidence of damage occurring during the policy period resulting from an accident. Hurricane Katrina and its consequences should easily meet these requirements. Once the insured establishes facts that would provide coverage, the insurers must show that a policy exclusion precludes coverage. In some instances, the insurers can rely solely on the policy language, but in other instances, the insurers may have to marshal facts that support one or more exclusionary provisions.

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 Glenn M. Farnet

Reproduced with permission from Class Action Action Litigation Report, Vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 793-795 (Nov 11, 2005). Copyright 2005 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033). http://www.bna.com

Katrina has already spawned a hurricane of lawsuits. These suits include: suits by individuals who claim they were injured by hazardous substances that leaked from storage facilities, refineries, or pipeline facilities; suits by individuals who claim that oilfield production and pipeline activities caused wetland damage that exacerbated the effects of hurricane Katrina; and suits by individuals who claim faulty levees caused the widespread flooding that followed in the days after Katrina made landfall. All of these suits have a common thread: each will require the courts to determine whether the damages sued upon resulted from nature's fury or human blunder.

Louisiana, like many other states, recognizes the general principle that an "act of God" can be a complete defense to liability for negligence and strict liability claims. Louisiana courts have generally used a consistent definition of the term "act of God," but the application of that definition in the context of a specific event has not always been consistent or clear, particularly when the issue of contributing human fault is at play.

HB90, dealing with Governor Blanco's emergency orders suspending prescription, peremption, and legal deadlines, awaits final Senate passage. The Senate Judiciary A Committee adopted amendments which have not yet been incorporated into the latest version of the bill, but which should ultimately be included.

You can (and should) read the bill in its entirety here, together with the amendments by Senate Judiciary Committee A here.

Noteworthy aspects of the bill follow:

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).

Here are a few of the proposed bills from the House dealing with some of the items on Governor Blanco's call list:

HB32 - providing for the suspension of performance of contracts due to impracticability of performance.

By Glenn M. Farnet

The past twenty years has seen a dramatic increase in the volume of mass tort and other forms of complex litigation. As the volume of litigation has grown, so too have the burdens on the judiciary and the litigants. To address this growing problem, it is imperative that modern adjudicatory tools be adopted to achieve the goal of securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. One such case management tool that has developed in the context of mass tort litigation - but that can be equally effective in other types of litigation - is the Lone Pine Order.

By the Kean Miller Business Law Team

Many businesses in Louisiana are now assessing how Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita have affected and will continue to affect their contracts with clients, vendors, partners, and others. This article provides some general guidelines that businesses can use to determine if and how their contracts' terms or Louisiana's commercial law may affect contractual rights and obligations in light of the hurricanes.

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."

La. R.S. 47:315.1 permits the owner of personal property destroyed by a natural disaster (i.e., one declared by the President to warrant federal assistance) to obtain a sales tax refund under certain circumstances. According to the Louisiana Department of Revenue (http://www.rev.state.la.us/forms/taxforms/1362I(10_02).pdf), a claim can be made for "taxes paid on movables such as clothing, boats, appliances, furniture, etc.," but not fixed items such as carpeting, cooling systems, etc. You should read the referenced link for more information.

Persons suffering movable property losses must file a claim with the Department using Form 1362 (Natural Disaster Claim for Refund of State Sales Taxes Paid), Form R-1362I (Natural Disaster Claim for Refund - General Information), Form R-1362S (Natural Disaster Claim for Refund - Schedule), and Form R1363 (Refund of State Sales Taxes Paid on Titled Assets). The forms are available from the Department's website at www.rev.state.la.us under "Tax Forms" and the sub-heading "Sales Tax."

The full text of the statute follows:

By Brad Myers

In light of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in the Suire case, businesses and industrial concerns may want to consider modification of their indemnity provisions in contracts in order to allow for the litigation of defense and indemnity claims during underlying tort litigation.

From the indispensable newsletter of Professor Frank L. Maraist, sage non pareil at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center, comes a pointer to a recent First Circuit Court of Appeal opinion relating to protected medical records.

Article 510 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence establishes the basic privilege which protects a "confidential communication made for the purpose of advice, diagnosis or treatment" of a patient's "health condition between or among himself or his representative, his health care provider, or their representatives." This privilege belongs to the patient, to exercise or to waive, as he or she sees fit. Section 510(B)(2) lists a number of exceptions to the privilege.

In Moss v. State, 2004-2160 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/24/05), 2005 WL 1490450, Ms. Smith and Mr. Moss were both killed in a head-on collision between their respective cars. Mr. Moss' survivors sued the Department of Public Transportation for a defective highway. The Department urged the comparative fault of the late Ms. Smith - whose estate was not a party to the lawsuit.

Ernie the Attorney recently posted an excellent article on e-discovery, noting the increase in lawyer/client sanctions and general anguish due to ignorance of the range of material subject to discovery, and then how to find it and organize it. Clearly not just about e-mails anymore, electronic discovery offers a huge opportunity for skillful exploitation by the knowledgeable. Woe betide those who think they can wait to learn about it AFTER they get served with a request for production.

Ernie also recommends Michael Arkfeld's blog Electronic Discovery and Evidence for continuing education on this ever-expanding problem area.