Kinchen v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
Docket: No. 2004 CA 1894
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 23, 2005; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An accidental shooting at Marie Rome's residence on August 11, 2000, led to a wrongful death lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed a trial court's decision granting an exception of prescription in favor of defendants Stephen Rome and Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Stephen Rome was added as a defendant in an amending petition on January 15, 2004, while Metropolitan was named in the original petition on August 10, 2001. The original defendants included Marie Rome, her insurer Metropolitan, and Brandon Dean, the shooter, who had settled with the plaintiff.
On November 24, 2003, Marie Rome and Metropolitan moved for summary judgment, which was granted on March 17, 2004, dismissing them from the lawsuit but reserving the plaintiff's rights against Stephen Rome and Metropolitan as his insurer. On April 16, 2004, Stephen Rome and Metropolitan filed an exception of prescription, arguing the plaintiff's claims were barred by the one-year prescriptive period under Louisiana Civil Code article 3492. The trial court ruled that the claims were prescribed since Stephen Rome was not included in the original petition, thus not meeting the criteria for relation back as outlined in Ray v. Alexandria Mall.
The appellate court found that the trial court erred in its application of the law, specifically regarding the interruption of prescription. According to Louisiana Civil Code articles 3503 and 2324 C, interruption of prescription against one solidary obligor is effective against all solidary obligors. Thus, the plaintiff's amended petition, filed before the dismissal of other defendants, should have interrupted prescription against Stephen Rome and Metropolitan as his insurer.
The Etienne court determined that timely claims against a driver and an employee interrupted the prescription period for other solidarily liable employees because the employer was already involved in the lawsuit, preventing prescription from running. The ruling emphasized that as long as the employer remained a party to the case, pursuing claims against the other employees was unnecessary. It was established that a timely filed suit against either a defendant or their solidarily liable insurer interrupts the prescription against both, referencing Pearson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., which supports this principle. Furthermore, in Baker v. Payne, Keller of La., the court affirmed that an amendment to a timely filed petition relates back to the original filing date.
The case of Langlinais v. Guillotte was cited, where a timely filed tort suit against an automobile owner and their insurer interrupted prescription on an amended petition against the owner's daughter. Under La.C.C. art 2097, an insurer and its insured are considered solidary obligors, meaning a suit against the insurer interrupts prescription against the insured.
Stephen Rome and Metropolitan contended that the principles from Trahan did not apply due to Metropolitan's dual roles as insurer for both Mrs. Rome and Stephen Rome. The Trahan case examined whether a completed lawsuit against named defendants interrupted prescription for a subsequent, untimely lawsuit against different defendants. It clarified that insurers are liable only in their capacities as insurers of their insureds. However, in Baker, the court highlighted that the first suit's final judgment did not absolve the insurer from being a solidary debtor with those officers who had not been indebted to the plaintiffs. The court noted that a timely suit against a financially responsible defendant interrupts prescription for the tortfeasor, regardless of when they are named in the lawsuit, which aligns with the current case, as the insurer was never dismissed from the lawsuit, unlike in Trahan.
In Baker, the court determined that the Trahan precedent does not apply to the case at hand, as the insurer was being sued in its role as the insurer for new defendants. The court noted that while it may be beneficial to consider an insurer's capacity in determining solidarity with its insured, there is no existing legislation or case law to support this view. At the time Stephen Rome was added as a defendant, Metropolitan was already named in the lawsuit. The amended petition claims Stephen Rome's solidary liability with Metropolitan, irrespective of the later dismissal of other defendants. Under Trahan, a subsequent suit against both Metropolitan and Stephen Rome would not interrupt the prescription period if Metropolitan and the other defendants had been dismissed. However, Louisiana law and jurisprudence necessitate a different outcome in this case. Since Mrs. Rome and Metropolitan were timely named defendants, and Stephen Rome was sued as a solidary obligor while the prescription against Metropolitan was interrupted, the suit against both was not time-barred when the amended petition was filed. Although the defendants argued that Metropolitan's capacity should dictate the interruption of prescription, the court found no legal basis for this claim. It suggested that legislative amendment may be warranted but proceeded to apply existing law regarding solidary obligors. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming that the suit against Stephen Rome and Metropolitan was timely filed, with appeal costs borne by the defendants. The judgment was reversed, with concurrence from Justices Carter and Gaidry. The case relates to the procedural interpretation of solidary liability and prescription interruptions under Louisiana law.
