Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Andrus Restoration, LLC
| Decision Date | 21 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019 CA 1279,2019 CA 1279 |
| Citation | 314 So.3d 51 |
| Parties | ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANDRUS RESTORATION, LLC d/b/a Servpro of Greater Covington and Mandeville, and Servpro Industries, Inc. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Lacresha D. Wilkerson, Charles E. Riley, IV, New Orleans, LA, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
Troy Allen Broussard, Lafayette, LA, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, Andrus Restoration, LLC, d/b/a Servpro of Greater Covington and Mandeville, and Servpro Industries, Inc.
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
Plaintiff seeks review of a judgment that sustained defendants’ peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissed plaintiffs petition against defendants with prejudice.
Plaintiff, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company ("Allstate"), brought suit against defendants, Andrus Restoration, LLC, d/b/a Servpro of Greater Covington and Mandeville, and Servpro Industries, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Servpro"). Allstate alleged that Servpro destroyed evidence of the cause and origin of a fire at the house of Allstate's insureds, James and Sandra Valentine, in Mandeville, Louisiana. In the original petition, Allstate alleged that Servpro was negligent in its remediation of the fire-damaged house, and had breached a contract by destroying evidence that would have been useful for Allstate's potential subrogation claim. Servpro responded by filing an exception of no cause of action, which was sustained by the trial court on January 9, 2019. In that judgment, the trial court dismissed the negligent spoliation claim1 , but allowed Allstate thirty days to amend its petition to remove the grounds for objection of no cause of action as to the breach of contract/warranty claim.
No party appealed the January 9, 2019 judgment. However, Allstate timely filed a first supplemental and amended petition for damages. In the amended petition, Allstate repeated the same factual allegations as in the original petition, but eliminated the negligent spoliation claim and attached portions of a July 18, 2012 Professional Services Agreement ("the 2012 contract") between Allstate and Servpro and its service providers. Additionally, Allstate alleged that the provisions of the 2012 contract were breached in that Servpro had not performed the remediation work in a "good workmanlike manner" as warranted and, further, Servpro had not ensured that its service providers were trained on "how to identify potential subrogation claims." Allstate also alleged that the 2012 contract expressly provided that any disputes about the contract should be construed pursuant to Illinois law.
In response, Servpro filed another exception of no cause of action, alleging that Allstate's amended petition failed to cure the defects found in the original petition in that Allstate had not alleged a connection between the 2012 contract and the work performed by Servpro at the Valentines’ home. Servpro also urges that Allstate's breach of contract/warranty claim is merely a negligent spoliation claim in disguise in that there is no allegation that Servpro failed to complete the required training as related to this particular claim. Instead, Servpro maintains that Allstate again alleges that Servpro failed to contact Allstate to ensure that the origin and cause of the fire investigation at the Valentines’ home was completed before destroying relevant evidence during remediation efforts. Servpro points out that the allegations made by Allstate have nothing to do with Allstate's claim that Servpro breached the 2012 contract by failing to train its service providers on how to identify subrogation claims. Further, Servpro argued that Allstate did not show any contractual provision concerning a duty to preserve evidence that would support a potential subrogation claim by Allstate against an unrelated third party.
Allstate opposed the second exception of no cause of action, and the matter was argued on May 1, 2019. The trial court signed a judgment on June 5, 2019, sustaining Servpro's exception of no cause of action as to Allstate's breach of contract/warranty claims and dismissed Allstate's first supplemental and amended petition with prejudice. The trial court issued written reasons for judgment on June 26, 2019, concluding that Allstate's amended petition had failed to allege that the work performed by Servpro at the Valentines’ home was governed under the provisions of the 2012 contract or that the contract had been breached. The trial court further reasoned that in order to have a breach of contract claim under either Illinois or Louisiana law, there must be some allegation that the contract governs the actions or inactions alleged to have breached the contract.
Allstate appeals, assigning three errors that in sum maintain that the trial court erred: (1) in sustaining Servpro's exception of no cause of action; (2) in not applying Illinois law; and (3) in not allowing Allstate to amend its petition again when Servpro would not be unduly prejudiced by another amendment.
Initially, we observe that Allstate and Servpro both acknowledge that under either Illinois or Louisiana law, the elements of a breach of contract claim are essentially the same. The trial court specifically found that it would have reached the same conclusion under either of the states’ laws. We find no error in the trial court's remark; thus, it is not necessary to further analyze the choice of law clause in the 2012 contract.2
A peremptory exception raising the exception of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged. Naquin v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., 2013-1638 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/2/14), 147 So.3d 207, 209, writ denied, 2014-1091 (La. 9/12/14), 148 So.3d 933. No evidence may be introduced at any time to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La. Code Civ. P. art. 931. Rather, the exception is triable solely on the face of the petition and any attached documents. Paulsell v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 2012-0396 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/12), 112 So.3d 856, 864, writ denied, 2013-0274 (La. 3/15/13), 109 So.3d 386.
The well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception of no cause of action. Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014-2362 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So.3d 589, 594-95. Therefore, the court reviews the petition and accepts well-pleaded allegations of fact as true, and the issue is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La. 1993). Every reasonable interpretation must be accorded the language of the petition in favor of maintaining its sufficiency and affording the plaintiff the opportunity of presenting evidence at trial. CLB61, Inc. v. Home Oil Company, LLC, 2017-0557 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/1/17), 233 So.3d 656, 660. The exception should be sustained only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim that would entitle him to relief.
State of Louisiana, by & through Caldwell v. Astra Zeneca AB, 2016-1073 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/11/18), 249 So.3d 38, 42 (en banc), writs denied, 2018-00766 and 2018-0758 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 899 and 904.
Because the objection of no cause of action raises a question of law and the trial court's decision is based solely on the sufficiency of the petition, review of the trial court's ruling on the exception is de novo. Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP, 2006-1774 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 641, 647. The pertinent inquiry is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in the plaintiff's favor, the petition states any valid cause of action for relief. Reynolds, 172 So.3d at 595.
Servpro contends that Allstate's amended petition does not allege any specific actions of Servpro at the Valentines’ house that breached the 2012 contract. Further, Allstate does not allege it has a contract with Servpro that expressly requires Servpro to preserve evidence for a potential subrogration claim previously determined by Allstate against an unrelated third party. Accepting all of Allstate's factual allegations as true - that Servpro and Allstate had an agreement that Servpro would perform remediation work in a good workmanlike manner, and that Servpro would train its service providers on how to identify potential subrogration claims - we do not find any allegation that Servpro breached a contractual obligation that led to Allstate's alleged damages in this particular case. There is no allegation that Allstate anticipated subrogation litigation connected with the fire at the Valentines’ house and then entered into a contract with Servpro that expressly required Servpro to preserve the evidence necessary to support Allstate's potential subrogation claim against a third party. There is no allegation that Servpro did not properly train its service providers in preserving evidence for potential subrogation litigation, nor that it was contractually bound to do so. Thus, we find no error in the trial court's legal conclusion that Allstate's amended petition failed to state a breach of contract cause of action against Servpro.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial