Allen v. Smith

Citations: 419 So. 2d 1267; 1982 La. App. LEXIS 7908Docket: No. 14853

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; August 24, 1982; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was filed regarding a trial court judgment that upheld an exception of prescription by Royal Indemnity Company, the plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier. The central issue is whether the timely lawsuit against the tort-feasor interrupts the prescription period for claims against the uninsured motorist carrier. Raymond Allen was injured in an automobile accident on March 19, 1977, and subsequently sued Sylvester Smith, the other driver, on August 1, 1977. Allen later amended his petition to include U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation and, on November 26, 1980, added Royal Indemnity Company as a defendant. Royal Indemnity Company argued that the claim had prescribed, as it was filed more than two years after the accident, citing La. R.S. 9:5629. The trial court maintained the prescription exception, leading to this appeal.

Allen's second assignment of error contends that he should have been permitted to amend his petition to assert the solidary responsibility of Royal Indemnity Company alongside the tort-feasor, claiming such an amendment would prevent the prescription from being upheld. The court determined that the issue of whether prescription was interrupted could be resolved from the pleadings alone. Citing the Supreme Court case Hoefly v. Government Employees Insurance Company, the court concluded that Allen’s timely lawsuit against Sylvester Smith indeed interrupted prescription for claims against Royal Indemnity Company.

The Court’s decision in Hoefly establishes that both the tortfeasor and the uninsured motorist carrier share a solidary obligation under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2091. This article stipulates that when multiple debtors are obligated to the same creditor, any one debtor can be compelled to pay the entire debt, and payment by one discharges the others. The Court determined that the tortfeasor and the uninsured motorist carrier are collectively liable, with their obligation arising from legal provisions related to delictual responsibility and the uninsured motorist statute, thus creating a solidary obligation by operation of law.

Furthermore, under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2097, a lawsuit against one solidary debtor interrupts prescription for all debtors. In this case, the plaintiff timely filed suit against the tortfeasor, which consequently interrupted prescription against the uninsured motorist carrier, Allstate. The accident occurred on March 19, 1977, and the initial suit against the tortfeasor was filed on August 1, 1977, with an amended petition naming Royal Indemnity Company as a defendant on November 26, 1980. If the plaintiff had not filed against the tortfeasor, the claim against Royal would have prescribed under La.R.S. 9:5629, which prescribes a two-year limit for actions related to uninsured motorist provisions from the date of the accident.

The Court also addressed the retroactive application of La.R.S. 9:5629, affirming that the Louisiana Supreme Court previously ruled in Reichenphader v. Allstate Insurance Company that a delay in the effective date of this law allowed plaintiffs a reasonable time to assert their rights, thus permitting retroactive application. As a result, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, with costs assigned to the appellee.