Narrative Opinion Summary
In a dispute involving a school construction project, the Congregation of the Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church filed a lawsuit against Sam Istre Construction, Inc., alleging defects and violations under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (LUTPA). The plaintiffs claimed breaches of contract and negligent construction due to moisture and mold issues discovered post-completion. Sam Istre Construction filed an exception of peremption to dismiss the LUTPA claims, arguing that the one-year filing period is peremptive. However, the trial court denied this exception, and the court of appeal affirmed the denial. The appellate court found that the timeline for filing LUTPA claims is prescriptive, not peremptive, based on recent legislative amendments to La.R.S. 51:1409(E) interpreted as clarifying the original legislative intent. The Plaintiff successfully argued that their claims were timely filed under the doctrine of contra non valentem, as the defects were discovered within one year of filing the lawsuit. As a result, the writ application by Sam Istre Construction was denied, allowing the case to proceed in trial court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Interpretive Legislationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court deemed the recent amendment to La.R.S. 51:1409(E) clarifying the statute as interpretive and thus applicable retroactively.
Reasoning: This amendment, although not yet effective, is deemed interpretive, clarifying the original intent of the statute rather than establishing new law.
Doctrine of Contra Non Valentemsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Plaintiff invoked this doctrine to argue that their LUTPA claim was timely filed within one year of discovering the defect.
Reasoning: The Plaintiff alleges that the discovery of improper insulation—specifically, a non-approved house-wrap used instead of the specified Tyvek—was made only after the removal of a brick wall in the South Annex.
Interpretation of Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interpreted the timeline for filing LUTPA claims as prescriptive based on legislative intent and recent amendments.
Reasoning: However, the court finds Relator's argument unpersuasive, noting that the recent amendment to La.R.S. 51:1409(E) indicates legislative intent for the filing period to be prescriptive, not peremptive.
Peremption versus Prescription in Louisiana Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the time period for filing LUTPA claims is peremptive or prescriptive.
Reasoning: Relator argues that this one-year period is peremptive, not prescriptive, citing case law supporting this interpretation.