Williams v. SIF Consultants of La., Inc.

• Citation: 209 So.3d 903
• Decision Date: 29 December 2016
• Docket Number: 16–343
• Parties: George Raymond WILLIAMS, M.D. v. SIF CONSULTANTS OF LOUISIANA, INC.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)

209 So.3d 903

George Raymond WILLIAMS, M.D.

v.SIF CONSULTANTS OF LOUISIANA, INC.

16–343

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

December 29, 2016

Rehearing Denied February 1, 2017

John S. Bradford, William B. Monk, Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, L.L.P., P.O. Box 2900, One Lakeside Plaza, Fourth Floor, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 436–9491, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Orthopaedic Surgery, A ProfessionalMedical, LLC, George Raymond Williams, M.D.

Charles Thach Curtis Jr., Gerard George Metzger, Attorneys at Law, 829 Baronne Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, (504) 581–9322, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Med–Comp USA, Inc.

Patrick A. Juneau Jr., The Juneau Firm, Post Office Drawer 51268, Lafayette, LA 70505–1268, (337) 269–0052, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE: Patrick Juneau, Special Master

Patrick C. Morrow, James P. Ryan, Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett, P.O. Box 1787, Opelousas, LA 70570, (337) 948–4483, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery, A ProfessionalMedical, LLC

Stephen B. Murray, Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Arthur M. Murray, Nicole A. Murray–Ieyoub, Murray Law Firm, 650 Poydras Street, Ste 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 525–8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF /APPELLEE: George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery, A ProfessionalMedical, LLC

Larry Lane Roy, Brown Sims, 600 Jefferson St., Suite 800, Lafayette, LA 70501, (337) 484–1240, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Bestcomp, Inc.

Randall Kurt Theunissen, Allen & Gooch, P.O. Box 81129, Lafayette, LA 70598–1129, (337) 291–1000, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Homeland Ins. Co. of New York

Janice Bertucci Unland, Rabalais, Unland, 1404 Greengate Dr., #110, Covington, LA 70433–5272, (985) 893–9900, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Risk Management Services

Steven William Usdin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, 909 Poydras St., #2400, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 589–9700, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Executive Risk Specialty Ins. Co.

Martin A. Stern, E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Raymond P. Ward, Adams & Reese LLP, 701 Poydras St., Suite 4500, New Orleans, LA 70139, (504) 581–3234, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Homeland Ins. Co. of New York

Thomas A. Filo, Somer G. Brown, Michael K. Cox, Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, L.L.C., 723 Broad Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 436–6611, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: George Raymond Williams, M.D., Orthopaedic Surgery, A ProfessionalMedical, LLC

Michael E. Parker, Allen & Gooch, P.O. Box 81129, Lafayette, LA 70598–1129, (337) 291–1000, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Homeland Ins. Co. of New York

Cynthia J. Thomas, Galloway, Johnson, et al., 3 Sanctuary Blvd., Suite 301, Manderville, LA 70471, (985) 674–6710, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc.

John Mark Fezio, Stone, Pigman, et al., 546 Carondelet St., New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 581–3200, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Cor Vel Corp.

Michael J. Rosen, Peter F. Lovato, Skarzynksi Black, LLP, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Ste 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, (312) 946–4200, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Homeland Ins. Co. of New York

Daniel J. Layden, Ronald P. Schiller, Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, One Logan Square, 27th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Risk Management Services

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, and John E. Conery, Judges.

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This is a class action wherein the plaintiff class filed suit against two different insurance companies under La. R.S. 22:1269. The plaintiff class asserted claims for damages under statute prohibiting certain conduct by preferred provider organization.

The plaintiff class previously moved for and was granted summary judgment against one of the insurance companies. The case settled while that first insurance company's application for writs to our Louisiana Supreme Court was pending. In the settlement, the plaintiff class reserved all rights to pursue any claims against the second insurance company.

The plaintiff class then moved for and was granted a motion for summary judgment against the second insurance company. The trial court granted the motion. The second insurance company appeals this decision.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY :

The plaintiff class of medical providers filed suit against Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company (Executive Risk) and Homeland Insurance Company of New York (Homeland) under the direct action statute. Executive Risk and Homeland had each issued a claims-made errors and omissions policy to CorVel, Corp. (CorVel) during consecutive time periods. Executive Risk issued policies to CorVel for annual periods from October 31, 1999, to October 31, 2005. Homeland issued policies for annual periods from October 31, 2005. CorVel settled with the plaintiff class for failure to comply with the mandatory notice provisions of billing discounts in the Louisiana PPO Act, La.R.S. 40:2203.1.

After the trial court certified the plaintiff class and this court upheld that certification, a motion for partial summary judgment was filed by the plaintiff class against Executive Risk. The trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of coverage. This court, in Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. , 13–972 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/26/14), 133 So.3d 707, affirmed the trial court. While an application for writs to our Louisiana Supreme Court was pending, the plaintiff class settled with Executive Risk, but reserved it rights against Homeland.

Thereafter, the plaintiff class filed a motion for summary judgment against Homeland. The trial court granted the motion. Homeland appeals the granting of the plaintiff class' motions for summary judgment, raising the three assignments of error that follow:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR :

1. The trial court's judgment is contrary to the principle of issue preclusion embodied in Louisiana's res judicata statute, La. R.S. 13:4231(1).

2. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to apply judicial estoppel, thus allowing plaintiffs to take contrary positions in obtaining two contradictory summary judgments.

3. The trial court committed legal error in granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Homeland despite a number of genuinely disputed issues of material fact.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE :

Homeland asserts, in its first assignment of error, that the trial court's judgment was erroneous due to the principle of issue preclusion under La. R.S. 13:4231(1). We find no merit to this assertion.

DE NOVO REVIEW

Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231 states:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:

(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.

(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.

(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment.

Our Louisiana Supreme Court, in Burguieres v. Pollingue , 02–1385, p. 8 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So.2d 1049, 1053, stated:

A reading of La. R.S. 13:4231 reveals that a second action is precluded when all of the following are satisfied: (1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation.

In the case before us, Homeland argues that a previous opinion of this court affirming the grant of a motion for summary judgment against another defendant, Executive Risk, finding that Executive Risk's policy provides coverage to the plaintiffs' claims, renders plaintiffs' assertion that Homeland's policy provides coverage to the plaintiffs' claims barred under res judicata. We find this argument to be without merit.

Homeland is not the same party as Executive Risk. However, courts have found that if there exists an "identity of parties," res judicata can apply. "Identity of parties exists whenever the same parties, their successors, or others appear so long as they share the same ‘quality’ as parties." Mandalay Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Energy Development Corp. , 01–993, pp. 16–17 (La.App. 1 Cir.), 880 So.2d 129, 140.

Homeland argues that being a party to the litigation that produces the preclusive judgment satisfies the "identity of parties" requirement citing Williams v. Orleans Levee Dist. , 09–2637 (La. 4/5/10), 31 So.3d 1048. We find no such absolute in our reading of Williams . In Williams , our supreme court dealt with a discharged employee who was attempting to relitigate whether he was improperly discharged. The Williams plaintiff brought a complaint before the Civil Service Commission. The commission found that the employee's behavior justified discipline and eventually suspended him for thirty days. The Orleans Levee District and the employee both appealed to the First Circuit. The First Circuit found that the employee "intentionally and purposefully disregarded the established procedures for an employee to pursue his grievance by using legal counsel and television media to interrogate and expose the appointing authority to embarrassment and ridicule." Williams v. Orleans Levee Dist., Bd. of Comm'rs , 00–297, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/01), 784 So.2d 657, 660, writ denied , 01–173...