Ficarra v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-CA-837,87-CA-837 |
| Citation | 527 So.2d 493 |
| Parties | Salvadore FICARRA, Jr. v. MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Jerry W. Sullivan, Halpern and Daigle, Metairie, for defendant-appellee.
John P. Ferrara, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
David M. Cambre, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before CHEHARDY, GAUDIN and WICKER, JJ.
The defendant, Mt. Vernon Fire Insurance Company, appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment, specifically the finding of the trial judge that it had a duty to defend its insured. We affirm.
The plaintiff, Salvador Ficarra, Jr., was injured in a fight with Billy Hoffman. Hoffman was an employee of Vincson, d/b/a Kenny Vincent Southside Lounge, and/or Kenny Vincent. Ficarra sued Hoffman, Vincson, Kenny Vincent, and Mt. Vernon, the liability insurer of Vincson.
Mt. Vernon filed a motion for summary judgment, citing the intentional act exclusion of its policy. The trial judge denied the motion, finding that "the date of the alleged incident and the exclusionary endorsement are factual issues in contest." Additionally, he concluded, "The court is of the opinion that the insurance company had a duty to defend."
Mt. Vernon applied to this court for writs (87-CA-400), asking us to review the trial court's decision. We denied the writ, finding no error below. By this appeal, Mt. Vernon is asking us to review one of those issues already addressed: the trial judge's finding that Mt. Vernon had a duty to defend. We believe our prior denial of writs is the "law of the case."
The law of the case principle relates to (a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. Among reasons assigned for application of the policy are: the avoidance of indefinite relitigation of the same issue; the desirability of consistency of the result in the same litigation; and the efficiency, and the essential fairness to both sides, of affording a single opportunity for the argument and decision of the matter at issue.
Nevertheless, the law of the case principle is applied merely as a discretionary guide: Argument is barred where there is merely doubt as to the correctness of the former ruling, but not in cases of palpable former error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenner Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Rusich Detailing, Inc.
...court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. Ficarra v. Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 527 So.2d 493, 494 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988). It applies to all prior rulings or decisions of an appellate court or the supreme court in the same case, not me......
-
Bonar v. Bonar
...Printing Co., Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 99-60 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99), 739 So.2d 977, 982-983; Ficarra v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 527 So.2d 493, 494 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988). 5. See Cutrer v. Mid-Continent Group, 99-1402 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 23, 24 (Lemmon, J., concurring in wri......
-
Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd.
...appellate court will not reconsider its prior rulings on an issue in a subsequent appeal in the same case. Ficarra v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 527 So.2d 493 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988). This Court has previously held that the "law of the case" doctrine applies to previous decisions on writ ap......
-
Sea Trek, Inc. v. Sunderland Marine Mut. Ins.
...So.2d 507, 509. 3. Bustamente v. Vezina, 95-556 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/30/96), 668 So.2d 1286, 1291. 4. Ficarra v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. (La. App. 5th Cir.1988), 527 So.2d 493, 494. 5. Azreme, Corp. v. Esquire Title Corp., 98-1179 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/30/99), 731 So.2d 422, 6. Id., at p. 4......