Rismiller v. Gemini Ins. Co.
| Citation | 347 So.3d 655 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2020-CA-0313 |
| Parties | Khristy Goins RISMILLER, Tutrix for Daniel Edward Goins v. GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Mark Isiah Gordon and Keith Boone Trucking, LLC David Watts v. Mark Gordon, Kenneth Boone dba Boone Trucking, Keith Boone Trucking, LLC, and Gemini Insurance Company Sheila Smith v. Gemini Insurance Company, Kenneth Chad Boone d/b/a Boone Trucking, and Mark Gordon Succession of Richard Stewart, Jr., Raymond Kelly, Donna Kelly, Richard Stewart, Sr. and Vera Anita Stewart v. Mark Isiah Gordon, Kenneth Boone, Keith Boone Trucking, LLC and Gemini Insurance Company |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
ON APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CONCORDIA
BODDIE, Justice ad hoc* This is a direct appeal by defendant, Gemini Insurance Company, from a judgment of the district court holding La. C.C. arts. 2315.1, 2315.2 and 199 "unconstitutional as applied to children given in adoption" and overruling the defendants’ peremptory exceptions of no right of action.1 At issue is whether the plaintiffs, Daniel Goins and David Watts, two adult children who were given in adoption as minors, have a right to bring wrongful death and survival actions stemming from the deaths of their biological father and his two minor children, who were not given in adoption and are the plaintiffs’ biological half-siblings. After a de novo review, based on the clear and unambiguous wording of La. C.C. arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2, we conclude that Daniel Goins and David Watts, biological children given in adoption, are "children of the deceased" and "brothers of the deceased" who are permitted to bring wrongful death and survival actions arising from the death of their biological father and half-siblings. In view of our holding that the plaintiffs have a right to assert survival and wrongful death actions, we need not address their argument that La. C.C. arts. 2315.1, 2315.2 and 199 are unconstitutional as applied to children given in adoption.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter stems from a tragic accident on October 1, 2015, in which an eighteen-wheeler truck driven by Mark Gordon collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Richard Stewart, Jr. Mr. Stewart was killed, as well as his two minor children, George and Vera Cheyanne Stewart. At the time of his death, Mr. Stewart was married to Lisa Watts Stewart. However, George and Vera Cheyanne were born to Brandie Hardie, with whom Mr. Stewart reportedly had a relationship during his marriage to Lisa Watts Stewart.
Following the accident, three separate survival and wrongful death actions arising out of the deaths of Mr. Stewart and his minor children were filed in district court. Two of the lawsuits present claims filed by or on behalf of Daniel Goins and David Watts, now adults who, as minors, were given for adoption by the Stewarts. Mr. Goins was adopted by Joyce and George Goins, Mr. Stewart's aunt and uncle. Mr. Watts was adopted by his maternal grandparents, Mary and Jimmy Watts.
The driver of the truck, the truck's owner (Kenneth Boone d/b/a Boone Trucking), and its insurer (Gemini Insurance Company) have been named as defendants. The district court consolidated all of the wrongful death and survival claims, and the defendants filed peremptory exceptions of no right of action against all claimants. The district court overruled the exceptions. As to the claims of Mr. Goins and Mr. Watts, which are the only claims now before this court, the district court ruled that "the biological relationship and dependency" of Mr. Goins and Mr. Watts was the origin of the right of action and, further, "the fact that Watts [and Goins] w[ere] adopted does not prevent [them] from bringing survival and wrongful death claims for the death of [Mr.] Stewart, [their] biological father." Succession of Stewart v. Gordon , 17-812 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/3/18), 316 So. 3d 1052, 1055–56.2 The district court ruled that the plaintiffs had a right of action arising from the deaths of their half-siblings. Id .
On supervisory review, the court of appeal, in a 4-3 decision, reversed the district court's rulings on the defendants’ exceptions of no right of action.3 The majority explained: "It has long been held that children given up in adoption are divested of their legal rights except as to those relating to inheritance." Succession of Stewart , 17-812, 316 So. 3d at 1058 (citing La. C.C. art. 199 ).
See Succession of Stewart , 17-812, at 316 So. 3d at 1061–69 (Cooks, J., dissenting in part); see also id at 14-21, ––– So. 3d at –––– (Savoie, J., dissenting in part); Rismiller , 17-809, 316 So. 3d 1178, 1181–83 (Conery, J., dissenting in part).
The plaintiffs then sought review by this court. They asserted that La. C.C. arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2, relating to wrongful death and survival actions, are unconstitutional inasmuch as the court of appeal found those articles provide no right of action for adopted children to assert wrongful death and survival actions following the death of a biological parent. Perceiving the constitutional argument to be newly raised in this court, we pretermitted a decision on the merits and remanded the matter to the district court to allow the plaintiffs "to amend their petition in an attempt to state a cause of action."4
On remand, the plaintiffs amended their petitions to assert the unconstitutionality of La. C.C. arts. 2315.1, 2315.2, "and/or" La. C.C. art. 199, and filed a motion to declare those articles unconstitutional. The district court granted the motion, holding La. C.C. arts. 2315.1, 2315.2 and 199 are "unconstitutional as applied to children given in adoption" and overruled defendants’ exceptions of no right of action. Gemini Insurance Company directly appealed to this court.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
An exception of no right of action involving only a question of law is reviewed de novo. See Rebel Distributors Corp., Inc. v. LUBA Workers’ Comp ., 13-0749, p. 10 La. 10/15/13), 144 So. 3d 825, 833. Except as otherwise provided by law, an action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest, which he asserts. La. C.C.P. art. 681. See also Reese v. State Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 03-1615 (La. 2/20/04), 866 So.2d 244, 246. The function of the exception of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit. Id. (citing La. C.C.P. art. 927 ). The focus in an exception of no right of action is on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit, but it assumes the petition states a valid cause of action for some person and questions whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Id. For purposes of the exception, all well-pleaded facts in the petition must be taken as true. Miller v. Thibeaux, 14-1107, pp. 6-7 (La. 1/28/15), 159 So.3d 426, 430.
Regarding the interpretation of laws, the Louisiana Civil Code provides "[w]hen a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature." La. C.C. art. 9. "The words of a law must be given their generally prevailing meaning ." La. C.C. art. 11 (emphasis added). "Laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other." La. C.C. art. 13.
The survival action, found in La. C.C. art. 2315.1, provides:
The wrongful death action, found in La. C.C. art. 2315.2, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial