Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Collins v. Universal Casualty Co.
Citations: 54 So. 3d 1284; 10 La.App. 3 Cir. 844; 2011 La. App. LEXIS 120; 2011 WL 309427Docket: No. 10-844
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 1, 2011; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Rickey Collins initiated a lawsuit against Shentelle Lewis, Universal Casualty Company (UCC), and others following an automobile accident. After filing an answer, UCC submitted a petition for concursus, leading to the dismissal of both Lewis and UCC from the suit. Collins appealed this dismissal, which was reversed and remanded. On February 24, 2009, Collins was a passenger in Lewis's vehicle when they collided with Nathan Heath. Collins filed suit against both drivers on February 19, 2010, alleging that Lewis was insured by UCC. UCC responded on April 26, 2010, admitting only to issuing insurance and denying other claims without naming its insured or providing a policy copy. On May 3, 2010, UCC filed a concursus petition against Collins and certain healthcare providers, seeking to deposit its policy limits of $10,000 plus interest into the court's registry and requesting various orders, including the dismissal of UCC and Lewis from liability. The trial court granted UCC’s petition, issuing an order on May 4, 2010, which led to the dismissal of Lewis and UCC. Over a month later, UCC sought to add additional defendants to the concursus petition, which was permitted. UCC deposited $10,061.64 into the court, reflecting its policy limit plus interest. Collins later filed for a devolutive appeal on June 18, 2010. The legal framework for concursus is outlined in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, defining it as a proceeding where conflicting claims to money are resolved, allowing depositors to relieve themselves of liability for the deposited funds. A concursus proceeding is distinct from a summary proceeding and cannot adjudicate claims in the main demand or be used to implead a claimant in a personal injury case unless a casualty insurer admits liability for the total insurance coverage. Specifically, in this case, it cannot determine Shentelle Lewis's exposure to an excess judgment as the tortfeasor does not qualify as a proper plaintiff in concursus. While a concursus can relieve a party of liability for deposited funds, it does not absolve them of all further liability. An insurer that invokes concursus may still be required to defend its insured. In this instance, UCC initiated the concursus without demonstrating its coverage limits or duty to defend, and Lewis participated without showing she would not face an excess judgment. The trial court's ruling favoring UCC and Lewis was found to be erroneous, leading to the reversal of the trial court's order and remanding the case for further proceedings, with costs of the appeal assigned to UCC.