In a recent appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit reviewed whether a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit following a car accident had met her burden of showing the defendant driver was an uninsured/underinsured motorist. The burden remains on the plaintiff to present a prima facie showing of uninsured/underinsured coverage, and in this case, an affidavit by a rental car employee did not meet the evidentiary standard required to prove this status. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment against the automobile insurer and in favor of the plaintiff. The facts of this case centered on a car accident that took place at an intersection in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Mary King’s vehicle backed into Crystal Stephens’ vehicle. Both women had been driving a rental car. Safeway Insurance Co. of Louisiana had insured Ms. Stephens’ vehicle.
In a recent workers’ compensation case, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal addressed whether an employment relationship existed between an injured individual and an owner of horse stalls who violated a lease agreement by leasing the stalls to an unlicensed trainer. The accident victim had relied on the fact that she was covered by workers’ compensation when she agreed to exercise the horses. The court found that an employment relationship existed, and the employer and its insurer had not reasonably countered the evidence presented by the injured individual and had not articulated an objective reason for denying the benefits. On review, the court stated that findings of fact shall not be set aside unless there was a manifest error, or they were clearly wrong. The facts of this case made clear that Jill Neece, the claimant, was injured while exercising horses at Evangeline Downs Training Center. She filed an action for workers’ compensation benefits and also sought medical treatment and expenses, penalties, and attorney fees against Damien Scott, Scott Gelner, and the Louisiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (“FHBPA”). Ms. Neece began working at Evangeline Downs in late 2012 and then began galloping horses for Damien Simon in January 2013. On January 14, 2013, she was thrown from a two-year-old colt she was galloping for Mr. Simon. Ms. Neece suffered a back injury. Mr. Simon was not a licensed trainer and had his horses stalled at Evangeline Downs through a sublease agreement with Scott Gelner. Mr. Gelner leased 10 stalls […]
The Third Circuit Appeals Court recently addressed whether a clause in an automobile insurance liability policy contravened public policy. The clause defined a “temporary substitute vehicle,” which is a vehicle often used by the insured while the primary vehicle is under repair. In this case, the issue was whether the specific requirement that the primary vehicle be serviced by a repair shop, rather than a home mechanic, denied coverage to those who could not afford to professionally service their vehicle. The reviewing court held that the definition violated public policy by “penalizing poverty,” since not everyone can afford to take their car to the repair shop. Ryan LeGros’ car, a 1995 Honda Civic, became inoperable in September 2012. He borrowed Louis Istre, Jr.’s 1995 Mercury Sable to travel to work on September 27, 2012. Two days later, while returning from work in Mr. Istre’s vehicle, Mr. LeGros rear-ended a vehicle driven by Sherry Benoit. At the time of the accident, State Farm provided Mr. Istre’s automobile liability insurance. Safeway provided Mr. LeGros’ liability insurance. The repairs to Mr. LeGros’ Honda Civic were completed on September 30, 2012. After the accident, Ms. Benoit made a claim for the damages that resulted from the accident. State Farm paid the damages and filed a Petition for Subrogation. They sought reimbursement from Safeway for the $2,253.07 in bodily injury and property damages that were paid to Ms. Benoit. They asserted that Safeway was the primary policy that covered the accident.
In an appeal before the Fourth Circuit, the court addressed whether an employer was potentially vicariously liable for an alleged intentional act by an employee. In this lawsuit, the court reviewed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and held that in fact there remained a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the altercation that took place was a personal matter, or whether it was foreseeable and work-related. Plaintiff Renata Loya filed an appeal seeking to reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Allied Cash Advance Louisiana, LLC (“Allied”). Ms. Loya and Defendant Jasmine Lucas both worked for Allied and were involved in a physical altercation. The issue was which woman was the aggressor. Initially, the argument began over an email concerning Ms. Loya’s and Ms. Lucas’ respective work responsibilities. Ms. Lucas was a store manager, and Ms. Loya worked as a sales associate. On the day of the incident, the two women discussed the terms of an email, which were work-related. A physical altercation then took place. Both women had signed the Field Associate Handbook at Allied, which stated they were prohibited from making threats or engaging in violent activities. After the incident, both women were terminated.