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.
Bertrand v. Richard
Citations: 643 So. 2d 383; 94 La.App. 3 Cir. 274; 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2632; 1994 WL 541477Docket: No. 94-274
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 5, 1994; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Defendant LIGA (Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association) is appealing a trial court decision that allowed plaintiff Jodie Bertrand to liquidate a suspensive appeal bond posted by Automotive Casualty Insurance Company. The bond, worth $9,740.64, was initially intended to secure an appeal following a judgment in favor of Bertrand for damages of $9,241.32 resulting from an auto accident. After Automotive Casualty was ordered into liquidation on January 20, 1993, LIGA became its successor. The trial court, however, granted Bertrand's motion to disburse the bond without considering the liquidation orders or the stay in place that prohibited actions against Automotive Casualty's assets. LIGA contends that the trial court erred by disbursing the funds to Bertrand and by not returning the bond to the liquidator, asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to existing liquidation and stay orders. The court affirmed the trial court's decision. Defendant argues that the trial court improperly disbursed its appeal bond, claiming a violation of R.S. 22:762, which prohibits actions like attachment or execution against a delinquent insurer during delinquency proceedings. A 'delinquency proceeding' aims at liquidating or rehabilitating an insurer. R.S. 22:757(2) and C.C.P. art. 2124 outline the requirements for suspensive appeal bonds, indicating that such bonds must ensure that the appellant will satisfy any judgment against them. The original appellant, Automotive Casualty Insurance Co., deposited a check for $9,740.64, which was used to fulfill a judgment of $9,241.32 plus interest in favor of the plaintiff. Upon dismissal of the appeal by the appellant's successor, LIGA, the funds ceased to be the defendant's asset, and the bond reverted to the plaintiff to satisfy the final judgment. C.C. art. 3069 stipulates that a judgment against a legal surety requires a prior judgment against the principal obligor. Following the dismissal of the appeal, a valid judgment fixing the amount owed to the plaintiff was established, leading to the conclusion that the trial court did not err in disbursing the appeal bond. The court deemed the jurisdictional question raised by the appellant irrelevant due to the dismissal of the appeal. The trial court's judgment is affirmed at the appellant's cost.