Reynolds v. Bordelon

• Decision Date: 30 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014–C–2362.,2014–C–2362.
• Citation: 172 So.3d 589
• Parties: Richard L. REYNOLDS v. Robert J. BORDELON III, Robert J. Bordelon Jr., Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, Automobile Club Inter–Insurance Exchange, and/or Auto Club Family Insurance Company d/b/a Triple a Insurance, Nissan North America, Infinity Division of Nissan North America, Inc., a Luxury Car Division of Nissan Motors, Insurance Auto Auctions Corp., ABC Insurance Company, Def Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as Subrogee of/and Linda Dupuy v. Robert Bordelon and Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

172 So.3d 589

Richard L. REYNOLDS

v.Robert J. BORDELON III, Robert J. Bordelon Jr., Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company, Automobile Club Inter–Insurance Exchange, and/or Auto Club Family Insurance Company d/b/a Triple a Insurance, Nissan North America, Infinity Division of Nissan North America, Inc., a Luxury Car Division of Nissan Motors, Insurance Auto Auctions Corp., ABC Insurance Company, Def Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as Subrogee of/and Linda Dupuy

v.Robert Bordelon and Usagencies Casualty Insurance Company.

No. 2014–C–2362.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 2015.

Christine Yvonne Voelkel, Covington, LA, for Applicant.

Chopin, Wagar, Richard & Kutcher, LLP, Richard Allan Chopin, Michael Leon Cohen, Metairie, LA; McCraine Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, McDaniel & Wel, Keith W. McDaniel ; Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann, LLC, Michael Quirk Walshe, Jr., Justin Paul Lemaire, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Opinion

CLARK, J.

We granted certiorari to determine whether Louisiana recognizes the tort of negligent spoliation. For the reasons that follow, we hold that no cause of action exists for negligent spoliation of evidence. Regardless of any alleged source of the duty, whether general or specific, public policy in our state precludes the existence of a duty to preserve evidence. Thus, there is no tort. Alternative avenues of recourse are available within Louisiana's evidentiary, discovery, and contractual laws. Nonetheless, we remand for further consideration of the plaintiff's petition, finding sufficient facts were alleged by the plaintiff to state a potential breach of contract claim.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 15, 2008, a multi-vehicle accident occurred in St. Tammany Parish. The plaintiff, Richard Reynolds, sustained injuries and filed suit against Robert Bordelon, III, the driver alleged to have caused the accident. The plaintiff also asserted claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against Nissan North America (“Nissan”), the alleged manufacturer and distributor of the plaintiff's 2003 Infiniti G35, for failure of the airbag to deploy.¹ Additionally, the plaintiff's petition alleged that his insurer, Automobile Club Inter–Insurance Exchange (“ACIIE”) and the custodian of his vehicle after the accident, Insurance Auto Auctions Corporation (“IAA”), failed to preserve his vehicle for inspection purposes to determine whether any defects existed, despite being put on notice of the need for preservation.

ACIIE and IAA each filed exceptions of no cause of action, arguing a claim of spoliation of evidence requires “an intentional destruction of evidence for the purpose of depriving opposing parties of its use” and the petition contained no allegation of an intentional act by ACIIE or IAA. The trial court sustained the exception but allowed the plaintiff to amend his petition within fifteen days to state a cause of action pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 934. The plaintiff filed a First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages, which reads, in pertinent part:

5.

Plaintiff avers that shortly after the serious accident of March 15, 2008, giving rise to the instant matter the named defendants herein, INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS CORP, acting upon information and belief as the storage facility and/or as custodian of the Petitioner's vehicle on behalf of and/or in connection with AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER–INSURANCE EXCHANGE, d/b/a “Triple A Insurance”, insurer of Plaintiff, RICHARD L. REYNOLDS, both respectively failed to maintain custody and/or preserve Plaintiff's vehicle despite both Defendants being on notice by Plaintiff that the vehicle was to be preserved as evidence for a lawsuit. Plaintiff avers that defendants had notice that a lawsuit was likely and was going to be pursued.

6.

Plaintiff submits that the Defendants owed certain duties to Plaintiff and are liable unto Plaintiff for their negligence resulting in damages in the following non-exclusive manners:

A.) Defendants owed a duty unto the Plaintiff pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2315, as they were respectively on notice to prudently preserve, maintain, and to refrain from any alienation or destruction of Plaintiff's vehicle to be utilized in a tort claim with Defendants agreeing and understanding that the vehicle would be maintained for purposes of litigation.

B.) Additionally, Defendants are liable unto Plaintiff as their negligent actions cause[d] impairment of the instant civil claims, as Plaintiff's right to be free from interference in pursuing and/or proving his products liability claim is prejudiced giving rise to the loss of a right and opportunity of Plaintiff.

C.) In connection with the above plead [sic] facts the Defendants are further and/or alternatively liable unto the Plaintiff for negligently spoiling the evidence as Defendants owed Plaintiff a special and/or specific duty to preserve the evidence in the following nonexclusive particulars:

(i) Pursuant to Louisiana law including La. C.C. art. 2315, and

(ii) Pursuant to an affirmative agreement/undertaking and/or understanding that the evidence be preserved after being put on notice of necessity to preserve for litigation purposes; and

(iii) Pursuant to a special relationship as between Plaintiff and Defendants, arising through and in connection with the insurer, AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER–INSURANCE EXCHANGE's, obligations and responsibility to their insured as set forth in section iv below; and

(iv) Pursuant to both written and verbal contractual obligations to preserve the vehicle and pursuant to the insurer's obligations to its insured per the policy of insurance as well and/or alternatively through any written and/or otherwise documented obligation arising between INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS CORP, acting upon information and belief as the storage facility and/or as custodian of the Petitioner's vehicle on behalf of and AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER–INSURANCE EXCHANGE, insurer for Plaintiff.

7.

In connection with the above plead causes of action against AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER–INSURANCE EXCHANGE and INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS CORP, Plaintiff seeks special damages including but not limited to past, present and future medical expenses, and past, present and future lost wages, as well as general damages for his injuries sustained including but not limited to pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma, and disability, and all other appropriate relief including but not limited to compensatory damages that otherwise Plaintiff would have been able to present and prove but for the negligent acts of Defendants as detailed above, as Defendants' negligence results in serious prejudice to Plaintiff due to no fault of his own.

In response, ACIIE and IAA again filed exceptions of no cause of action, and ACIIE filed a motion for summary judgment, in the alternative. The trial court denied the exceptions and the motion for summary judgment in light of an opinion recently released by the First Circuit Court of Appeal, which discussed, in dicta, the theory of “negligent spoliation.”² The court of appeal denied writs, with one judge on the panel noting the court “ha[d] not issued a studied opinion regarding whether a cause of action exists for negligent spoliation of evidence.”³ This court denied the writ application.⁴

A later decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeal was released, wherein the concept of negligent spoliation was rejected, prompting ACIIE and IAA to renew their exceptions of no cause of action.⁵ Both ACIIE and IAA ultimately filed motions for summary judgment in the alternative. Based on Clavier, the trial court sustained ACIIE and IAA's exceptions of no cause of action. Further, the trial court declined to give leave to the plaintiff to amend the petition, finding no amendment could state a cause of action given the fact that the plaintiff conceded there were no facts to support an allegation of intentional spoliation. Additionally, the trial court denied the motions for summary judgment as moot. The court of appeal rendered an opinion, affirming the trial court's judgments, finding no cause of action exists for negligent spoliation under Louisiana law.⁶ We granted certiorari to definitively rule on the viability of negligent spoliation of evidence as a cause of action in Louisiana.⁷

APPLICABLE LAW

As used in the context of the peremptory exception, a “cause of action” refers to the operative facts which give rise to the plaintiff's right to judicially assert the action against the defendant.⁸ The purpose of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition.⁹ No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the exception of no cause of action.¹⁰ The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true.¹¹ The issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought.¹² Louisiana retains a system of fact pleading, and mere conclusions of the plaintiff unsupported by facts will not set forth a cause or right of action.¹³ The burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover.¹⁴ Because the exception 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 an exception of no cause of action is de novo.¹⁵ 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.¹⁶

DISCUSSION

The plaintiff contends the allegations contained in his petition are not limited to the singular cause of action of negligent spoliation of evidence and that the...