Blanchard v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1967
• Docket Number: No. 10766,10766
• Citation: 197 So.2d 386
• Parties: Alva G. BLANCHARD et al., dba the Inferno Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 386

197 So.2d 386

Alva G. BLANCHARD et al., dba the Inferno Company Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Ltd., et al Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10766.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

March 22, 1967.

Abramson, Maroun & Kaplan, Shreveport, for appellants.

Morgan, Baker, Skeels, Middleton & Coleman, Shreveport, Kalford K. Miazza, Kent Satterlee, Jr., New Orleans, Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King, Shreveport, for appellees.

Before HARDY, GLADNEY and AYRES, JJ.

GLADNEY, Judge.

Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover attorneys' fees, expenses and business loss allegedly sustained in defending certain damage suits which, it is averred, were filed 'without probable cause and * * * were willfully and negligently instituted.' In defense, opponents have filed multiple pleas and exceptions. An exception of no cause or right of action was sustained by the trial court and plaintiffs have appealed.

The question of whether or not the exception was properly sustained is the sole issue presented by the appeal. Consideration of the question requires reference to the petition, the pertinent part of which sets forth that:

'Under date of July 19, 1957 the defendant, Gulf Natural Gas Corporation, instituted suit #131,191 on the docket of the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana entitled 'Gulf Natural Gas Corporation vs Alva G. Blanchard, dba The Inferno Company', seeking to recover damages in the amount of $29,683.55 and praying for trial by jury, the pleadings in the aforesaid action being made a part hereof solely for the purpose of showing the contents thereof;

'Under date of July 25, 1957 the defendant, Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., instituted suit #131,234 on the docket of the First Judicial District Court against petitioners, seeking to recover damages, the proceedings in the aforesaid suit being made a part hereof by reference solely for the purpose of showing the contents thereof;

'As will appear from the allegations set forth in the petitions filed in the above actions, these claims arose out of an explosion that occurred in a plant owned and operated by Gulf Natural Gas Corporation;

'As will be further noted from the above mentioned pleadings, the basis of defendants' claims as against plaintiffs herein was alleged defects in a safety valve manufactured and sold by plaintiffs to Gulf Natural Gas Corporation;

'The above actions were tried by jury and in each instance the demands of the plaintiff were rejected;

'As the result of the institution of these actions petitioners were compelled to employ attorneys and engineers and incurred expenses in the defense totaling the sum of $12,942.30 as shown on the statement attached hereto, together with other expenses totaling the sum of $1,500.00, and has suffered a loss of business in the amount of $11,500.00;

'Defendants in the institution of the above actions were without probable cause and said actions were willfully and negligently instituted against plaintiffs;

'The defendants in the institution of the above actions were negligent in that they failed to use reasonable care in inquiring into and determining the facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the explosion involved;

'By the use of reasonable care and by making only casual inquiry, defendants could and should have ascertained prior to the institution of said actions that the explosion was caused by the negligent design, construction and operation of the Gulf Natural Gas Corporation plant;

'A casual inquiry and investigation by the defendants prior to the institution of the above actions would have revealed the following:

'The piping of the discharge from the safety relief valve involved was improper in that it was designed to discharge into the vessel that ruptured instead of being discharged to atmosphere;

'The compressor engine involved was not equipped with the usual safety devices so as to shut off the operation of said compressor in the event of excess pressure.

'That excess pressure sufficient to have resulted in the explosion could not have been developed had the intake and discharge valves of such compressor been properly operated.'

The exception is predicated upon the following pertinent averments:

"* * *

'(d) That exceptor filed its suit without malice and plaintiffs' petition does not so allege;

'(e) That this type of suit has no sanction in law and it without any legal basis or foundation.'

"* * *"

It is required of the petition asserting a judicial demand that it include a statement of the object of the demand and of the material facts upon which the cause of action is based. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 891. Conclusions of the pleader or conclusions of law do not sustain an exception of no cause of action. Hamilton v. City of Shreveport, La.App.,180 So.2d 30 (2nd Cir.1965, cert. den.). The exception of no cause of action must be determined from the contends of the petition and attached documents, if any, without evidence dehors. The court should only sustain the exception when all of the well-pleaded facts, taken as true, do not state a cause of action. Beasley v. Guerriero, La.App., 123 So.2d 774 (2nd Cir. 1960), 86 A.L.R.2d 703. The petition should be construed most favorably to plaintiff's cause of action and sustained unless the allegations exclude every possible hypothesis of admissible facts other than those negativing plaintiff's right to recover. Stanley v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company,...