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.
Florists' Mutual Insurance Co. v. Homecraft Corp.
Citations: 506 So. 2d 746; 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9361Docket: No. CA 86 0108
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 14, 1987; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Defendants Homecraft Corporation and David Archer appeal a trial court ruling favoring Florists’ Mutual Insurance Company in a subrogation suit, which awarded the plaintiff $13,589.08 for fire damage to the Mayeauxs' home but found Sears not solidarily liable. The Mayeauxs’ home, built by Homecraft in 1974, caught fire on September 28, 1975, in the kitchen area. While fire officials attributed the fire to a stove left on with a frying pan, plaintiff's expert, George Hero, testified that the fire's cause was electrical arcing in the range hood's junction box, leading to increased amperage in the wiring due to a loose connection that prevented the circuit breaker from tripping. Hero's findings indicated the fire originated above the hood and would have been contained if not for the faulty connection. The trial court ruled that Homecraft and Archer were solidarily liable for $12,839.08 plus interest and 95% of the court costs, while Sears was liable for the defective hood for $750.00 plus interest and 5% of all costs. Archer sought to argue that the absence of Mayeaux's testimony should imply unfavorable testimony for the plaintiff, but the court noted that the plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to locate Mayeaux, and thus no adverse presumption applied. Homecraft’s insurer, Aetna, was not held liable due to policy exclusions. Homecraft and Archer argue that the trial court mistakenly concluded that the fire was caused by defects in the range hood and house wiring, citing insufficient evidence of improper wiring and failure to eliminate other reasonable possibilities. They assert that the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff primarily relied on circumstantial evidence, which must collectively exclude other reasonable hypotheses with a fair degree of certainty, though it need not negate all possible causes. The only expert testimony came from Hero, who concluded that the fire originated electrically and was likely due to loose wiring outside the hood. Hero refuted the firemen's assessment of a grease fire, noting insufficient damage to support that theory and asserting that normal wear should not have caused the electrical failure. The trial court found Hero's testimony reliable and determined that the cause of the fire was not manifestly erroneous. Homecraft and Archer also claimed the trial court erred by not finding Sears jointly liable for the damages. The court clarified that, under Louisiana law, multiple tortfeasors contributing to a harm are solidarily liable. Given that the fire was caused by an electrical arc linked to a defective hood and that a loose wire contributed to the damage, the court ruled that Sears is also a joint tortfeasor. Consequently, the judgment was amended to hold Homecraft, Archer, and Sears solidarily liable for $13,589.08 in damages, with costs of the appeal shared equally among them. Additionally, a related case involving Mayeaux for property damage and personal injuries was dismissed due to his absence, and neither Archer nor Homecraft appealed certain findings, leaving those parts of the judgment unchallenged.