Louisiana in General

Subscribe to Louisiana in General via RSS

Through House Bill 589 of the 2013 Regular Session, the Louisiana legislature amended article 966 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, as of August 1, 2013, requires additional legwork by practitioners who seek to obtain a ruling or dismissal by summary judgment. The new rule requires the moving party to formally admit its evidence into the record for the purposes of that particular summary judgment motion. Thus, unlike in years past, the practitioner may no longer rely upon evidence “on file” in the record or evidence simply attached to the motion itself. Even under the 2012 amendments with similar language to HB589, at least one circuit recently held that the movant must formally admit its evidence in support of the motion at the hearing on the motion.

Article 966(B)(2) now states in pertinent part:

(2) The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (underlined language is added by HB589).Continue Reading Louisiana Legislature Amends Article 966 of the Code of Civil Procedure Requiring Additional Legwork by Practitioners Seeking Summary Judgment

The Kean Miller Connection is a free, two-day law school preparatory program for college students from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession.  Attorneys from Kean Miller  along with other legal instructors, provide an intense overview of the law school experience. The goal of the program is to "connect" students with information helpful…

In 2013, business owners with 50 or more full-time employees are expected to be finalizing their plans in response to the employer mandate health care reform, which becomes effective in 2014. Among the choices for business owners will be complying with the employer mandate or planning to pay the penalties for opting out, or executing plans to avoid the employer mandate by trimming their workforce or selling all or a portion of their business before 2014.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the so-called “employer mandate” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (t he “PPACA”) requires employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees (“FTEs”), with “full-time” defined as working at least 30 hours per week, to offer “minimum essential” and “affordable” health insurance to those employees and their dependents. Employers who do not comply will be subject to potentially significant penalties. Employers are not required to provide health care coverage for part-time employees, however, part-time employees must be counted as partial employees when determining whether an employer has 50 FTEs. There will also be various other new requirements under the PPACA effecting employers beginning in 2014 that are beyond the scope of this piece.

Many business owners are considering what they can do to get their FTE count below 50 and avoid the employer mandate and the associated cost increases and regulatory burdens.  Beware, however, that a reduction below this threshold effective January 1, 2014 may not avoid the employer mandate.   The proposed regulations provide that a business could be subject to the employer mandate if during 2013 it averaged 50 or more FTEs.  Employers would have the option to determine their 2013 headcounts by averaging the full 12 months of 2013 or any consecutive six-month period during 2013.  These regulations are in the process of being promulgated and are not yet final.

Additionally, the rules regarding who is an “employer” are not straight forward and contain traps for the unwary, and can render some plans to dodge the employer mandate ineffective. Similarly, having a basic understanding of the rules should alert business owners to seek advice if two or more related businesses may be considered as a single “employer” under the employer mandate rules.Continue Reading The Employer Mandate Health Care Reform: A Decision Point For Smaller Companies

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”).…

We’ve all been there. You sit on the Board of a local non-profit organization as the token lawyer. Or, you volunteered to assist with your house of worship’s finance committee because you have some practice experience with banks. Inevitably the scenario comes up: “You’re a lawyer. Will you help us buy that little piece of…

After the 2003 Corbello decision, the Louisiana legislature attempted to enact a workable procedure for recovering environmental damages arising from oil and gas operations known as Act 312. The main goal of Act 312 was to ensure that property contaminated by oilfield operations would be cleaned up to applicable regulatory standards. Since the enactment of Act 312, very few cases have made it through the Act 312 process. Thus, in an attempt to expedite the identification and remediation of contaminated property, the Louisiana legislature recently passed two new measures revising the Act 312 procedure.

Summary of the New Legislation

The first measure (a House bill enacted as Act 754) amends the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure to provide for:

  • The issuance of an environmental management order (EMO) to expedite site inspections and sampling, and
  • A limited admission of environmental liability that allows defendants to begin to remediate property before trial (limited to the most feasible plan to remediate the property).

The second measure (a Senate bill enacted as Act 779) provides for a number of amendments to Act 312:

  • Allows a plaintiff to provide a notice of intent to investigate potential environmental damage that suspends prescription of the claim for one year upon the notice being provided to LDNR,
  • Requires the plaintiff to identify the alleged environmental damage and the results of any environmental testing if a lawsuit is filed after a notice of intent to investigate is filed,
  • Permits a defendant to request an early preliminary hearing to determine whether there is good cause for it to remain a defendant in the case,
  • Grants subpoena power over agency personnel involved in developing the feasible plan and allows for discovery regarding the development of the plan after a final plan has been submitted,
  • Prohibits ex parte communications with agencies, officials, and contractors who are involved in formulating the feasible plan,
  • Requires the Departments of Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources, along with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), to comment if LDNR approves or structures a preliminary plan that applies regulations other than those of LDNR, and
  • Provides for a waiver of indemnity rights against punitive damages caused by a party who admits limited liability.

Continue Reading Act 312 – Louisiana Legislature Passes New Measures to Speed Remediation Process

The purpose of this post is to provide insureds with general information that will assist them in recognizing important facts and issues related to insurance coverage of environmental disasters. The primary areas addressed include (1) understanding the general types of potential insurance coverage; (2) recognizing environmental disasters; (3) deciding what to do once an environmental disaster is discovered to improve the possibility of insurance coverage and finally, (4) long term plans to improve coverage of potential future environmental disaster claims.

Insurance Policies

Insurance Coverage for Environmental Disaster Coverage is a complicated subject that must consider many different issues over many different timelines and many different jurisdictions with many different types of hazards. Understanding what an environmental disaster is and recognizing that one has occurred is the first thing an insured must do. Until the insured has recognized that an environmental disaster has occurred, it cannot ask the insurer for coverage and it cannot provide notice and coverage cannot be triggered. There are many different types of environmental disasters, a brief review of the history of the pollution exclusion in general liability policies provides some prospective as to how insurers look at environmental disasters and coverage.

Early standard general liability policies issues prior to 1966 contained insuring agreements that provided coverage for injury (caused by accident). The standard insurance service organization (ISO form) which is a general liability form used by most insurers was revised in 1966 to provide coverage for an “occurrence” with neither “expected” nor “intended” by the insured and specifically included continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions in its coverage. As a result of these changes, claims related to environmental damages increase dramatically. Insurers using the standard form added a mandatory endorsement in 1970 (ISO Form 00020173 1973) that excluded coverage using the following language:

“Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke vapors, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water.”

The referenced ISO form was often used in conjunction with a carve-back in of coverage which provided: “this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental.”

As you might expect, and as many of you may know, the 1970’s and 1980’s were a turbulent period for insureds and insurers who were engaged in coverage disputes under CGL policies for pollution related claims. Courts in the various jurisdictions reached different conclusions and were often at odds which made predicting coverage difficult.

The insurers, through the insurance service organization, created an absolute pollution exclusion in 1985 (See ISO form CG0021207), which excluded coverage for the following:

“Bodily injury” or property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, release or escape of pollutants:

At or from any premises, site or location which is or was at any time owned, occupied, or rented or loaned to, an insured[.]

“Pollutants” means solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.”

The absolute pollution exclusion lacked an exception for coverage for sudden or accidental problems and it did not provide coverage for allegations or threats of a polluting event and it also eliminated the requirement for a discharge into a foreign land, the atmosphere or water course or a body of water.

Not surprisingly, the absolute pollution exclusion was a source of significant litigation between insureds and insurers and lead to various interpretations by courts across the country. Some courts fell into a camp which accepted the insurance industry’s broad interpretation of the exclusion. Another group affords limited exclusion to damages when an undefined claim involved harm to the broader environment. Another group of courts found that the exclusion was ambiguous or required to be interpreted based on history of the exclusion and looked at the presentations of the insurance industry to the various insurance commissioners in the various states “Doer v. Mobil Oil Corporation,” 774 So.2d 119, 2000-0947, (La. 12/19/00). Knowing which state an environmental disaster is in and more importantly, what state law is going to apply to coverage, becomes very important and can be important in planning litigation as will be discussed below in some detail.

There are many types of insurance products today providing various types of coverage for environmental disasters. A review of all of the different products available is beyond the scope of this paper. Coverage ranges from limited coverage provided via endorsements to CGL policies to stand alone policy forms. Over the years, insureds have sought an expansion of coverage to avoid the gaps created by the pollution exclusions in CGL policies. In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of carriers providing environmental coverage products compared to the limited market of even five or six years ago. Based on work with brokers over the last year or so, it appears that there are around 30 different insurers now offering some form of environmental coverage. Coverage available for environmental claims is more readily available currently on a claims made basis; although occurrence based insurance is also sometimes available.

Download file

Continue Reading Insurance Coverage of Environmental Disasters

The recent enactment of House Bills 974 and 976 may conflict with and/or impair or impede the ability of school systems in school desegregation cases to implement outstanding orders of the court.

Where orders are outstanding regarding the hiring of teachers, for example, the provisions of House Bill 974 may give rise to a conflict.…

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently issued a major decision in favor of industry by reversing the rulings of a trial court and an appellate court that found plaintiffs in a toxic tort case were entitled to an award of punitive damages based on the application of another state’s law.

Kean Miller submitted an amicus brief…

The Louisiana Supreme Court has, once again, affirmed the constitutionality of the statutory cap for damages in Medical Malpractice cases.  On March 13, 2012, the Court reiterated its prior holding that the cap is constitutional and applicable to all qualified healthcare providers under the Medical Malpractice Act, including nurse practitioners.  The statutory cap on damages…