Coffey v. Block
| Decision Date | 23 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99 CA 1221.,99 CA 1221. |
| Citation | 762 So.2d 1181 |
| Parties | Jeannette Champagne COFFEY v. Jerald P. BLOCK, Keith J. Labat and Coregis Insurance Company. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bezou & Matthews by Robert H. Matthews, New Orleans, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant, Jeannette Champagne Coffey.
Hulse & Wanek by Gwendolyn S. Hebert, New Orleans, Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, Jerald P. Block, Keith Labat and Coregis Insurance Co.
Before NORRIS, CARAWAY and DREW, JJ. (Pro Tempore).
DREW, J. (Pro Tempore).
In her appeal of the judgment sustaining the defendants' exception of prescription and peremption and dismissing her legal malpractice action with prejudice, Jeanette Champagne Coffey urged that the well-pleaded allegations of her petition were sufficient to support her timely-filed action for legal malpractice based on her allegations of fraud. Coffey also objected to the trial court's refusal to find La. R.S 9:5605 unconstitutional. For the following reasons, the judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The issue of the constitutionality of La. R.S. 9:5605 is pretermitted.
February 28, 1992 Jeannette Champagne Coffey was
injured in an accident at Heritage
Manor of Houma
July, 1992 Coffey alleged that she met with
attorney Keith J. Labat who
asked when the accident occurred
Coffey told him that the accident
occurred sometime in February or
March 1992 before Mardi Gras
She was not sure of the exact
date, but told Labat that an incident
report was made following
the accident. Coffey suggested
Labat ask Ms. Laforke for a copy
of the report. Labat and Coffey
agreed Labat would handle the
case on a contingent fee basis
December 30, 1992 A contingent fee contract, effective
December 30, 1992, was executed
by Coffey, her husband, and
Jerald P. Block, Labat's employer
at the time.
January 15, 1993 Labat requested Coffey's file from
the South Louisiana Regional Vocational
Institute.
March 2, 1993 Labat filed suit for Coffey's personal
injuries. Sometime around
that time, Labat received information
showing the accident occurred
on February 28, 1992.
April 1993 Defendants filed an exception of
prescription to which they attached
an incident report showing
the mishap occurred February 28,
1992.
Labat told Coffey that a hearing
was scheduled on June 25, 1993,
which she and her husband had to
attend.
Labat's secretary advised the Coffeys
the hearing was postponed
and would be rescheduled.
Coffey alleged that one month
rater Labat told Coffey that he
had met with the judge, it would
be unnecessary for them to attend
a hearing, and the judge told him
he had the correct accident date
and the case could continue.
November 20, 1996 Labat told Coffey the issue about
the accident date was still pending
and a hearing on defendants' prescription
exceptions was scheduled
for November 22, 1996.
November 22, 1996 Prescription hearing conducted.
The exceptions were granted and
Coffey's personal injury action
was dismissed with prejudice.
August 20, 1997 Coffey filed this lawsuit against
Labat, Block and their insurer,
Coregis.
January 7, 1998 Defendants moved for a dismissal
based upon untimeliness under
La. R.S. 9:5605 and filed a Peremptory
Exception of Prescription
and Peremption.
August 21, 1998 Coffey filed an amended petition
alleging that Labat failed to conduct
a reasonable and adequate
investigation, that Labat misrepresented
the status of the litigation,
that Labat failed to act with
reasonable diligence and that Labat
made a misrepresentation to
obtain an unjust advantage and to
cause the loss of her cause of
action against him for malpractice.
January 29, 1999 Hearing on exception of prescription
held.
February 9, 1999 Trial court signed Reasons for
Judgment and the Judgment sustaining
the defendants' exception
of prescription and peremption
and dismissing Coffey's suit as untimely.
At the hearing on the exception in this case, Block testified that the undated employment contract signed by him and the Coffeys was effective December 30, 1992, and referred to the accident as having occurred on March 3, 1992. Labat testified that Coffey first asked him to represent her in December 1992 concerning her injury at the nursing home that is the basis for this suit. Labat identified his correspondence seeking the incident report from the South Louisiana Vo-Tech at which Coffey was a student when the accident occurred, including a letter signed by Coffey on February 18, 1993, which referred to the accident as having taken place on March 3, 1992. Labat stated he explained the ramifications of the defendants' prescription exception to Coffey who insisted the accident took place March 3, 1993. Labat also identified his June 22, 1993 letter to Coffey which stated, "The trial judge has rescheduled our hearing to determine the exact date of your injury for June 25, 1993, at 9:00 a.m." According to Labat, someone from his office notified Coffey the hearing had been postponed. When he spoke with Coffey about a month thereafter, Labat denied he told Coffey that he had met with the judge and that everything had worked out about the accident date so the case could continue. While Labat maintained that he relied upon Coffey's statements that the accident occurred on March 3, 1992, he acknowledged stating at his deposition that he undertook an investigation to confirm the exact date of the accident. Labat said that on the day before the November 22, 1996 prescription hearing, Coffey admitted she must have gotten the accident date wrong.
Coffey testified that she was notified by a secretary about the postponement of the prescription hearing in June 1993. When she did not hear from Labat, she contacted him a month later. Labat told her that he had met with the judge who told him they had the right date for the accident and the suit could continue. She was satisfied with Labat and had him represent her on another personal injury claim during that period. At a November 20, 1996 meeting with Labat about an insurance matter concerning her husband, Labat asked if she was ready to go to court because there was still a discrepancy about the date of her injury. Although she became angry because she had believed for a long time that issue was resolved, she stated Labat calmed her by explaining they would win because of the way the dates fell over a weekend.
Coffey testified the first time she saw the Vo-Tech incident report with the February 28, 1992 accident date was at the November 20, 1996 meeting. Coffey's explanation was that she and a friend met with Labat in June 1992. Coffey told him about her accident and stated she was unsure of the time, which may have been the end of February or early March. She acknowledged telling her doctor the accident occurred the Friday before Mardi Gras. When she and her husband met with Labat in December 1992, she asked Labat about the date of the accident and he informed her it was March 3, 1992. She denied that Labat showed her doctor reports stating the accident was February 28, 1992. Coffey admitted she wrote a letter to Labat prior to the day he filed her personal injury suit in which she referred to the accident date as March 3, 1992. She acknowledged filling a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Labat alleging he deceived her. She also admitted that, on advice of counsel, she withdrew that complaint in a letter which stated that she had reconsidered and concluded it was a negligence problem.
At the hearing on the exception, the defendants' attorney stated that Coffey's personal injury petition stated that the accident occurred on March 3, 1992. Coffey's attorney offered the underlying court record and noted the personal injury record was available to the trial court, since it was in the same court. However, that record was not available for appellate review.
La. R.S. 9:5605 states:
A. No action for damages against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state, any partnership of such attorneys at law, or any professional corporation, company, organization, association, enterprise, or other commercial business or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dauterive Contractors, Inc. v. Landry and Watkins
...a species of prescription, indeed, and has been referred to as a form of prescription. Flowers, Inc. v. Bausch, 364 So.2d 928 (La.1978); Coffey v. Block, 99-1221 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/00); 762 So.2d 1181, writ denied, 2000-2226 (La.10/27/00); 772 So.2d 651; McCoy v. City of Monroe, 32,521 (L......
-
Water Craft Management, L.L.C. v. Mercury Marine
...also Coates v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 2000-1331 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/21/01), 786 So.2d 749, 756, and Coffey v. Block, 99-1221 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1181 (Caraway, J., concurring), writ denied, 2000-2226 (La.10/27/00), 772 So.2d 138. Haggerty v. March, 480 So.2d 1064, 1068 (La.Ap......
-
Lomont v. Myer-Bennett
...of La. R.S. 9:5605(A) are peremptive, the fraud exception of La. R.S. 9:5605(E) is applicable to both.” Coffey v. Block, 99–1221 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1181, 1187, writ denied, 00–2226 (La.10/27/00), 772 So.2d 651.In some cases, the reasoning behind applying the fraud exception......
-
Naghi v. Brener
...to bring an exception relating to peremption was, as a general rule, the exception of no cause of action. Coffey v. Block, 99-1221 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1181, 1186, writ denied, 00-2226 (La. 10/27/00), 772 So.2d 651; Dowell v. Hollingsworth, 94-0171 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/94), ......