Recent Case Results

________________________________________________________________

Unum Wins Summary Judgment on Accidental Death Claim

On June 8, 2010, Lauren A. Welch and Hilliard "Trey" Kelly prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Unum Life Insurance Company of America ("Unum") in an ERISA suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs, beneficiaries of decedent Timothy D. Letter, were seeking in excess of $200,000 Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) benefits under an Employee Life Insurance Plan owned by Pepsi Americas, Inc. and administered by Unum. Prior to his death, Mr. Letter had been declared disabled and was receiving disability benefits under a separate employee benefit plan. In addition to disability benefits, this plan provided that a disabled employee was entitled to have his life insurance premiums waived. Plaintiffs argued that the waiver should have also included the premiums necessary to continue his AD&D coverage. Unum disagreed on the grounds that the AD&D coverage was separate and distinct from the standard life insurance. Furthermore, the terms of the policy did not provide for an AD&D waiver of premium. Judge Carl J. Barbier came down squarely on the side of the insurer noting that "the Life Insurance and the AD&D benefits contain separate and distinct sections relating to eligibility, coverage and payment amounts.... Therefore, it is unclear to the court how Letter to have believed that the clause applied to both the Life insurance and the AD&D provision." Accordingly, plaintiffs' case was dismissed with prejudice.

________________________________________________________________

Goodluck Edibiokpo v. Peterman, et al

(May 2010)

Michael Sistrunk, Kyle Kirsch, and Craig Canizaro recently won a victory for Winn Dixie Montgomery, LLC in the case entitled Goodluck Edibiokpo v. Peterman, et al, 2010 WL 1930081 (E.D.La. 5/10/2010), where plaintiff sought damages from Winn Dixie under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and La Civil Code article 2315.  The plaintiff, a commercial truck driver, claimed Winn Dixie violated the Federal Motor Carriers Act by asking him to leave its premises following the completion of his delivery and that Winn Dixie was liable for the injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of alleged actions by police officers when they arrived to escort plaintiff from the property.  The Court granted Winn Dixie’s F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, agreeing with Winn Dixie that plaintiff failed to state a claim under either 42 U.S.C. 1983 or Louisiana law.  Specifically, the Court held Winn Dixie did not have a duty to prevent plaintiff’s injury at the hands of police officers.  Accordingly, the Court found that Winn Dixie could not be found to be the legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

________________________________________________________________

Steven Guillory and Holiday Guillory vs. Christopher Saucier,
Albert K. Newlin, Inc., and Republic Underwriters Insurance Company
(May 2010)

Michael R. Sistrunk and Matthew J. Garver recently obtained a favorable jury verdict for Albert K. Newlin, Inc. and Republic Underwriters Insurance Company following a six day jury trial in the 14th Judicial District Court for Calcasieu Parish.  An employee of Albert K. Newlin, Inc., Christopher Saucier, caused a serious automobile accident while operating an Albert K. Newlin, Inc. owned vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  Steven Guillory sustained injury to his low back and underwent a series of epidural steroid injections and, ultimately, a radio frequency ablation procedure.  Mr. Guillory amassed over $68,000.00 in past medical bills and claimed to be symptomatic at the time of trial.  Mr. Guillory was employed at a local chemical and polymer plant and earned approximately $100,000.00 per year with extensive overtime.  Immediately following the accident, Mr. Guillory was unable to work for approximately 2 months and, as a result, Mr. Guillory asserted a past lost wage claim of $11,910.00.  Additionally, Mr. Guillory’s treating physician recommended a lifting restriction and assigned an anatomical disability to his low back that was alleged to be incompatible with his job requirements.  Consequently, Mr. Guillory also asserted a future loss of earning capacity claim.  The plaintiffs presented expert testimony regarding alternative careers and an economist estimated his loss of future earning capacity at over $1,000,000.00.  Mr. Saucier’s blood alcohol level after the accident was .171.  As such, the plaintiffs also sought punitive damages from Republic Underwriters Insurance Company for the alleged willful and wanton conduct of Christopher Saucier.   Read More >

________________________________________________________________

Weiss V. Mazda

 (March 2010)

Lance B. Williams and Quincy T. Crochet of McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, McDaniel & Welch recently obtained a summary judgment for Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Royal Oldsmobile Company, Inc. in the case of Elizabeth L. Weiss and John Weiss v. Mazda Motor Corp, et al., in the 24th Judicial District for the Parish of Jefferson, Case No. 536-515.  The plaintiffs filed the product liability action seeking damages against Mazda and Royal for injuries allegedly sustained when the airbag deployed after Elizabeth Weiss struck a parked vehicle in her 1994 Mazda MX3 in Metairie, Louisiana.  The plaintiffs claimed that the impact was minor and at an offset angle and thus the airbags should not have deployed.  They alleged that the supplemental restraint system was defective in design and for failure to provide adequate warnings.  The summary judgment argued that plaintiffs had failed to develop any evidence to prove that the vehicle was defective pursuant to the Louisiana Product Liability Act, and absent expert support all claims should be dismissed.  Judge William “Chuck” Credo, III, agreed and granted the defendants’ motion on March 30, 2010.  In his written reasons, Judge Credo explained that “Mazda provided adequate warnings regarding the activation and any potential dangers associated with airbag deployment.” 

________________________________________________________________

Duncan v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
(March 2010)

Keith W. McDaniel and Allen V. Davis prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was granted in favor of Ford Motor Company.  The two-vehicle accident at issue occurred in 2004; however, plaintiff failed to preserve the subject 1993 Ford Taurus, the most critical piece of evidence in the case.  The Court ruled that plaintiff failed to carry his burden in proving that the Ford Taurus was defective under the exclusive theories of liability found in the Louisiana Product Liability Act, LSA R.S. 9:2800.51. 

On January 24, 2004, plaintiff, Michael Duncan, was operating his 1993 Ford Taurus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when he was involved in a head-on collision.  Plaintiff alleged that the air bag of the Ford Taurus failed to deploy during the collision causing him to suffer severe injuries to his legs, head and mouth.

Duncan initiated the lawsuit in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge on January 24, 2005.  Ford subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Duncan failed to present any evidence that his damages were caused by any alleged defect in the Ford vehicle made the basis of his claims, and that Duncan would be unable to develop such evidence because of his destruction of the subject vehicle.  Duncan responded that, although direct evidence of a manufacturing defect did not exist, res ipsa loquitur applied establishing his burden of proof. 

After the presentation of the facts, evidence and oral arguments, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to take the necessary steps to preserve the 1993 Ford Taurus.  Furthermore, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proving that the Ford Taurus was unreasonably dangerous, or that any unreasonably dangerous or defective condition in it caused Plaintiff’s injuries.  Accordingly, the Court held that Duncan had not produced sufficient evidence to support his claim of a manufacturing defect, and rejected Plaintiff’s application of the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

________________________________________________________________

Martin Edgar, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

 (February 2010)

Keith W. McDaniel, Lance B. Williams, and Quincy T. Crochet of McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, McDaniel & Welch recently obtained a summary judgment for Ford Motor Company in the case of Martin Edgar, et al v. Ford Motor Company, et al., 2010 WL 481030 (S.D. Ind. 2/4/2010).  The single vehicle accident at issue occurred on December 24, 2005, on Interstate 49 in central Louisiana.  The six plaintiffs were the occupants of a 1993 Ford Explorer involved in a rollover after Martin Edgar lost control of the vehicle after its Firestone tire lost its tread.  As a result of the accident, Mr. Edgar suffered a cervical fracture and the remaining occupants sustained various injuries.

All six occupants of the five-passenger Explorer filed suit against Ford and Firestone in the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry.  The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and then transferred to the Bridgestone/Firestone Multi District Litigation pending in the Southern District of Indiana.

After more than two years of litigation, Ford moved for Summary Judgment and argued that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden under the Louisiana Product Liability Act for establishing a defect in the vehicle.  The District Judge granted the motion, noting that plaintiffs had not participated appropriately in the discovery process and had not satisfied a previous award of costs and attorney fees in favor of Ford.  The plaintiffs attempted to salvage their case by retaining experts and offering reports after the deadline to do so had long passed.  The Court granted Ford’s Motion to Strike the tardy expert opinions, and held that plaintiffs had failed to provide any evidence of any defect.  Accordingly, Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

________________________________________________________________

The Paragon Lofts Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. The Paragon
Lofts, L.L.C., Ekistics, Inc., Edifice Construction, Inc., The Roof Doctors, Inc., and Minerit, Inc.
(February 2010)

Donna Wood and Jason Thrower were victorious on a motion for summary judgment dismissing claims against Cement Board Fabricators, Inc., and Lannie Gwartney assisted in successfully defending against the appeal of that judgment. The Paragon Lofts Condominium Association sought damages from the defendants arising from alleged construction defects related to the roof and exterior walls of the condominium’s penthouse. Edifice, who served as the general contractor, sought indemnity from Cement Board as the supplier of the Minerit board used in the construction. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit found that Edifice could not seek indemnity from Cement Board as a matter of law, because no contract of indemnity existed between Cement Board and Edifice. Further, the court found that there was no implied contract of indemnity, because Edifice was not free of fault, in that it deviated from the installation specifications. Finally, the court found that Edifice did not have a contribution claim against Cement Board because they were not solidary obligors.

________________________________________________________________

Glenn D. Schurr and Lori Schurr v. Christopher M. Gagnon, Milton L. Gagnon, United States Automobile Association (USAA) and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
(January 2010)

Donna Wood succeeded in obtained a summary judgment dismissing the claim against USAA on the basis of lack of coverage, and, with the assistance of Lannie Gwartney, successfully defended an appeal of that judgment. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim against USAA, finding that the non-owned truck's Rated Load Capacity exceeded the amount allowed under the USAA personal automobile policy, and thus, was specifically excluded

________________________________________________________________

Kimberly Creel v. Ford Motor Company

(July 2009)

Keith W. McDaniel, Lance B. Williams, and Quincy T. Crochet recently prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was granted in favor of Ford Motor Company.  The single-vehicle accident at issue occurred in 1998, but plaintiff did not file a lawsuit until more than two-and-a-half years later.  The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the doctrine of contra non valentem should apply, and dismissed her claims as prescribed pursuant to Louisiana’s one year liberative prescriptive period.  Kimberly Creel v. Bridgestone-Firestone, Inc., et al., 2009 WL 2044264 (S.D. Ind. 7/8/2009).  Read More >

________________________________________________________________

One River Place Condominium Association, Inc. v. Axis Surplus Insurance Company

(June 2009)

Peter Wanek, Kyle Kirsch, Sid Hardy, and Kevin Kress recently obtained a favorable jury verdict for Axis Surplus Insurance Company following a seven day trial in federal court in New Orleans.  Axis insured One River Place, a luxury condominium high-rise building in downtown New Orleans on the Mississippi River, under a property insurance policy issued to its condo association.  The property suffered damage during Hurricane Katrina. Axis adjusted the claim and made payments for damages that it found to be caused by the high winds of Hurricane Katrina.  Read More >

________________________________________________________________