Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 1, 2005; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Calvin G. Segura, Jr. suffered an injury on September 20, 2001, while performing plumbing work at Jason Hebert's home, alleging electrocution due to his drill contacting a copper pipe. Segura, employed by Calvin Segura Plumbing, filed a workers' compensation claim on July 24, 2002, which was dismissed on April 14, 2003, after his employer agreed to provide benefits. Two years post-accident, on September 19, 2003, Segura filed a Petition for Damages against Cleco Power, LLC and Jason Hebert. The defendants invoked exceptions of prescription, arguing the petition was untimely under La. Civ. Code art. 3492, as it was filed more than a year after the injury.
Segura contended that his timely workers' compensation filing interrupted the prescription period for third-party claims due to La. Civ. Code art. 3463. During the hearing, Segura and his former attorney, Frank Barber, testified about discrepancies regarding the homeowner's name and the details of the accident. Segura initially misidentified the homeowner and was unaware of the correct date of the accident when he filed the compensation claim. Barber acknowledged that the workers' compensation claim related to the same incident but did not amend the filing despite learning the correct homeowner name later.
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, affirming the exceptions of prescription, and Segura's claims were found to be time-barred. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming no error in the trial court's ruling.
On June 30, 2004, the trial judge granted exceptions of prescription for Cleco and Hebert based on Louisiana Civil Code Article 3463, noting that the Defendants were not notified of Segura's claims until approximately two years post-accident. A judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's suit was signed on July 15, 2004, prompting an appeal. The appellate court referenced its previous ruling in Egle v. Egle, outlining that peremptory exceptions are resolved before trial, and the trial court is not obliged to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true. When evidence is presented, the appellate court reviews the record to assess any manifest errors in the trial court's factual conclusions.
In cases of peremptory exception of prescription, the burden of proof typically lies with the party asserting prescription, unless the pleadings clearly show that prescription has run, in which case the plaintiff must demonstrate an interruption or suspension of the prescriptive period. The applicable prescriptive period here is one year, per La. Civ. Code Article 3492. The plaintiff argued that a timely filed workers' compensation claim interrupted prescription against Cleco and Hebert, asserting they are solidary obligors with his employer under La. Civ. Code Article 1974. However, the Defendants countered that since the workers' compensation claim was voluntarily dismissed, prescription was not interrupted.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant's general appearance in the compensation suit negated the dismissal's voluntary nature. The court disagreed, citing La. Civ. Code Article 3463, which states that interruption from a suit continues as long as the suit is pending but is nullified if the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action before or after the defendant's appearance. The amended Article 3463 applies to this case since the incident occurred on September 20, 2001, and the action was filed on September 19, 2003. Additionally, Article 3462 indicates that prescription is interrupted when legal action is initiated against an obligor, and Article 1799 states that interruption against one solidary obligor applies to all.
Louisiana law establishes that third-party tortfeasors and employers in cases arising from the same injury are considered solidary obligors. When an injured employee files a timely workers' compensation claim, it interrupts the prescription period for claims against third parties. In this case, the plaintiff’s workers' compensation claim was voluntarily dismissed five months before he initiated a tort suit against Cleco and Hebert. According to La. Civ. Code art. 3463, this voluntary dismissal negates any interruption of prescription, rendering the tort suit untimely. The plaintiff's argument that "voluntary dismissal" applies only before a general appearance by the defendant was rejected, as recent amendments to the article clarify that it applies at any time before or after such appearance. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that prescription was interrupted, and the trial court found the current action to be prescribed. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Cleco and Hebert, with all appeal costs assigned to the plaintiff, Calvin G. Segura, Jr.
