Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 6, 2018; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Lanie Farms, Inc. filed a lawsuit against CLECO Power, LLC and Utility Lines Construction Services, Inc. (Highlines) for economic losses and remediation costs stemming from the defendants’ construction of electrical poles and power lines on property leased by Lanie Farms. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for involuntary dismissal and ruled in favor of Lanie Farms, awarding $38,000 in damages plus interest and costs. Lanie Farms subsequently sought a new trial regarding damages, which was denied, leading them to appeal. In its appeal, Lanie Farms questioned the $38,000 damage award and sought additional damages for various issues, including Right of Way Mitigation Efforts, Land Leveling, and Crop Damages, totaling over $300,000. CLECO and Highlines countered the appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their motion for involuntary dismissal and in finding them negligent without sufficient evidence. The findings indicate that Lanie Farms operates on 1,600 acres leased from multiple parties and that CLECO had the right to construct power lines on the property under specific servitude and easement agreements established in 2009 and 2010. Highlines was subcontracted by Ampirical Solutions to carry out the construction from October 2010 to May 2011. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding no manifest error or abuse of discretion.
Lanie Farms initiated a lawsuit against CLECO and Highlines for economic damages and remediation costs resulting from the defendants' construction activities, alleging negligence and invoking a provision in their agreement that required CLECO to cover damages to property or crops. The parties agreed that 6.6 acres of plant cane and 1.5 acres of first stubble cane were destroyed within the right-of-way, while Lanie Farms claimed an additional 15 acres were damaged, though the cause of damage for these was not stipulated. CLECO and Highlines sought declaratory relief regarding the measure of damages and contested Lanie Farms' entitlement to costs and attorney fees, but later withdrew their motion, accepting that Lanie Farms' claim was based solely on negligence. Following a bench trial, CLECO and Highlines moved for involuntary dismissal, arguing Lanie Farms did not prove negligence or damages, which the court denied. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of Lanie Farms, awarding $38,000 in damages, citing the credibility of witness testimony and evidence that damage was limited to the right-of-way. Lanie Farms later sought a new trial on damages, which the court denied, asserting its ruling was a fair interpretation of the evidence. On appeal, Lanie Farms contested the damage award and the denial of a new trial, while the defendants challenged the denial of their involuntary dismissal motion and the judgment against them. The appellate court reviews general damage awards for abuse of discretion and motions for new trial and involuntary dismissal for manifest error.
The excerpt outlines the standard for appellate review of general damages awards in Louisiana, emphasizing the appellate court's limited role in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. An appellate court can only disturb a damages award if it finds a clear abuse of discretion by the trier of fact, which must be evident in the record. The court must refrain from substituting its own judgments or re-weighing evidence, even if it believes its conclusions may be equally reasonable. When there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice is not considered manifestly erroneous. The appellate court should only modify an award if it exceeds what a reasonable trier of fact could determine under the given circumstances. The excerpt references Lanie Farms' claim for $336,427.00 in damages, arguing that the trial court's award of $38,000.00 was clearly erroneous. Lanie Farms supports its claim with expert testimony from Dr. Calvin Viator, who detailed specific damages related to mitigation efforts, land leveling, crop damages, and seed replacement.
Defendants' expert, Mr. Paul Mclean, contested the damage valuations presented by Lanie Farms, asserting that their total damages amounted to $30,000. Mclean, recognized as an expert in various relevant fields, argued that net value, which accounts for farming and marketing expenses, provided a more accurate reflection of losses than gross value, which could result in an excessive recovery. The trial court favored Mclean's testimony, as Lanie Farms failed to effectively discredit it or demonstrate inconsistencies. The court's discretion in assessing damages was upheld, finding the award reasonable and rejecting Lanie Farms' motion for a new trial as unfounded. Regarding the motion for involuntary dismissal, the court found that Lanie Farms did not sufficiently prove negligence but had presented servitude agreements obligating CLECO to compensate for damages caused during construction. These agreements required CLECO to restore the property condition post-activity at its own expense.
Lanie Farms provided adequate notice in its petition regarding a contractual provision, prompting the Defendants to file a motion for declaratory judgment, where they acknowledged Lanie Farms as a third-party beneficiary entitled to damages from their construction activities. The assertion by Lanie Farms that its petition was not based on contract does not alter its legal standing. CLECO, by contract, committed to compensating for all damages from its construction, and the parties agreed on the extent of the plant cane and stubble affected. Although Lanie Farms did not present evidence of negligence, the combination of the contractual agreement, stipulations, witness testimonies, and submitted evidence was sufficient to support Lanie Farms’ case against an involuntary dismissal. The trial court correctly ruled that CLECO's agreement to cover damages to property and crops specifically benefited Lanie Farms as the lessee, and the evidence confirmed the Defendants' obligation to compensate for the damages incurred. Consequently, the trial court's judgment against CLECO and Highlines was upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to them. The court referenced prior cases illustrating industry standards for crop loss valuation in similar contractual contexts, affirming the judgment.
