You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

McLean v. Majestic Mortuary Services Inc.

Citations: 96 So. 3d 571; 11 La.App. 5 Cir. 1166; 2012 La. App. LEXIS 702; 2012 WL 1867614Docket: No. 11-CA-1166

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 22, 2012; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against Majestic Mortuary Services, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud, following the death of her husband and subsequent issues with funeral services and life insurance proceeds. The trial court dismissed the claims against Majestic for improper venue and against MetLife under the doctrine of res judicata, concluding that the concursus proceeding resolved all disputes regarding the insurance proceeds. On appeal, the court found that res judicata was incorrectly applied to claims beyond the scope of the concursus proceeding, as it was limited to the allocation of the insurance funds. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the improper venue decision, transferring the case against Majestic to Orleans Parish, where the funeral services were performed. The court determined that ancillary venue rules did not apply due to separate contractual obligations between MetLife and Majestic. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the venue was improper and res judicata did not extinguish claims for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud unrelated to the concursus proceeding.

Legal Issues Addressed

Ancillary Venue Rules

Application: Ancillary venue was not applicable as the obligations of MetLife and Majestic arose from separate contracts, negating the applicability of joint obligor rules for venue determination.

Reasoning: However, since MetLife and Majestic are not joint obligors and their obligations arise from separate contracts, the concept of ancillary venue does not apply.

Concursus Proceedings and Scope

Application: The court highlighted that concursus proceedings are limited to the determination of rights to a specific sum, precluding additional claims such as penalties and attorney's fees.

Reasoning: A concursus proceeding involves multiple parties with conflicting claims to money or property, where they are required to assert their claims against one another.

Improper Venue

Application: The court ruled that the venue in Jefferson Parish was improper for Majestic Mortuary Services, Inc., as the wrongful conduct and damages occurred in Orleans Parish, necessitating the transfer of the case.

Reasoning: Consequently, venue in Jefferson Parish was deemed improper. Although the district court's ruling on the exception of venue was affirmed, the judgment was amended to transfer the case against Majestic Mortuary Services, Inc. to Orleans Parish under La. C.C.P. Art. 932.

Res Judicata under Louisiana Law

Application: The appellate court found that res judicata was improperly applied to claims beyond the scope of the concursus proceeding, which was limited to the allocation of insurance proceeds.

Reasoning: Therefore, MetLife's res judicata exception against McLean's broader claims should not have been fully granted, as the concursus proceeding is limited in scope.