Lee v. Champion Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-CA-0672,91-CA-0672 |
| Citation | 591 So.2d 1364 |
| Parties | Freddie LEE, Sr. and Delores Brown v. CHAMPION INSURANCE COMPANY and Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association. 591 So.2d 1364 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Gerald J. Leydecker, Rene Lovelace, New Orleans, for Freddie Lee, Sr. and Delores Brown.
Dwight L. Acomb, William F. Bologna, Habans, Bologna & Carriere, New Orleans, for Champion Ins. Co., and Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n.
Before KLEES and WARD, JJ., and GULOTTA, J. Pro Tem.
In December of 1987, Freddie Lee Sr. and Delores Brown, his passenger, were side-swiped by a vehicle driven by an uninsured motorist. Lee was insured by Champion Insurance Company and had uninsured motorist coverage. LSA-R.S. 9:5629 bars filing of lawsuits claiming uninsured motorist damages unless those lawsuits are filed within two years from the date of the accident. Mr. Lee and Ms. Brown filed suit March 13, 1990, more than two years after the accident occurred. Lee and Brown argue that prescription has not run because Champion, the uninsured motorist carrier, had been placed in liquidation by a court order which either extended the time for filing suits or barred the filing of suits during liquidation proceedings.
On June 5, 1989, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court ordered Champion liquidated and appointed the Honorable Frederick Ellis as liquidator. On June 19, 1989, Judge Ellis as liquidator sent notice of liquidation proceedings to interested parties. Mr. Lee and Ms. Brown say they relied upon this notice which is styled:
"Notice to Policyholder, Creditors, Attorneys, and Others".
In one paragraph it said:
"All claims or potential claims against Champion must be received with proper proof of loss by July 5, 1990 at 5:00 P.M."
In another paragraph it says:
"Notice of Abatement of Legal Proceedings The Louisiana Insurance Code, LSA-R.S. 22:732, et. seq. and the Trial Court's orders stay all suits and seizures against Champion Insurance Company and prohibit the commencement or maintenance of any action or proceeding in the nature of an attachment, garnishment, or execution against Champion Insurance Company or its agents."
When Lee and Brown filed suit on March 13, 1990 they named Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association as a defendant because of the insolvency of Champion. On June 5, 1990, LIGA filed a peremptory exception of prescription which the Trial Court denied. LIGA filed a Notice of Intention to Apply for Supervisory Writs but never acted upon it, possibly because they decided to file a motion for a summary judgement before the judge to whom the case was assigned for trial. On November 21, 1990 LIGA filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. Although styled differently, the Motion was based on the law of prescription and the issue was the same as that litigated in the peremptory exception. The Trial Court to which the case was assigned for trial rendered a summary judgment in favor of LIGA, and Mr. Lee and Ms. Brown appeal the Trial Court's decision, arguing a procedural issue and the merits of prescription:
I. The judgment of the Trial Court overruling the Exception of Prescription was a final judgment; therefore, the Trial Court's subsequent granting of the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of prescription was in error.
II. The liquidation order legally restrained them from proceeding against Champion Insurance Company until July 5, 1990; therefore, the suit filed on March 13, 1990, had not prescribed.
A ruling which sustains a peremptory exception of prescription is a final judgment, because obviously, that ends the case for the losing party. Those cases cited by Lee and Brown, Fust v. Fontenelle, 558 So.2d 715 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990); Lowe v. Rivers, 445 So.2d 105 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), and others, merely stand for that rule. A Trial Court ruling denying summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riddle v. Simmons
...of a peremptory exception of prescription is a final judgment obviously ending the case for the losing party. Lee v. Champion Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 1364 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991). Here, in response to such an exception, the trial judge dismissed appellant's intervention with prejudice. Upon rend......
-
Rogers v. Corrosion Products, Inc.
...claim for suspension of prescription because of the bankruptcy automatic stay is without merit." See also Lee v. Champion Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 1364, 1366 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991) (holding that "liquidation" does not bar filing of suit or suspend the prescriptive period). In diversity cases, we......
-
93-1133 La.App. 3 Cir. 5/4/94, Centanni v. Ford Motor Co.
...592 So.2d 1319 (La.1991). The grant of a peremptory exception of prescription constitutes a final judgment. Lee v. Champion Insurance Co., 591 So.2d 1364 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991). A valid, final judgment in favor of the defendant is conclusive between the parties. It extinguishes all causes o......
-
Hargett v. Progressive Ins. Co.
... ... Kemper v. Don Coleman, Jr. Builders, Inc., 34,671, p. 3, (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/18/01), 779 So.2d 1001, 1002; Ferguson v. Bocskov, 07-924 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/25/08), 983 So.2d 162, 164 n. 1 (citing Ware v. Mumford, 04-118 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04), 875 So.2d 885); Lee v. Champion Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 1364, 1365 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991) ... In the case sub judice, the district court did not render a final judgment upon denying Progressive's first motion for summary judgment. Consequently, ... ...