Kathy Cipolla v. Cox Communications Louisiana, LLC, Abc Insurance Company, 1844, LLC and Xyz Insurance Company

KATHY CIPOLLA * NO. 2019-CA-0509

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

COX COMMUNICATIONS * FOURTH CIRCUIT
LOUISIANA, LLC, ABC
INSURANCE COMPANY, 1844, * STATE OF LOUISIANA
LLC AND XYZ INSURANCE
COMPANY *

*
*******

RML LEDET, J., CONCURRING WITH REASONS

Although I agree with the majority’s ultimate determination affirming the

trial court’s decision, I disagree with the majority’s decision that a de novo review

is warranted. As the majority correctly observes, the governing principle for

establishing the standard of review is as follows:

[A] de novo review should not be undertaken for every
evidentiary exclusion error. Rather, a de novo review should be
limited to consequential errors; that is, the error prejudiced or tainted
the trial court’s finding with regard to a material factual issue.

In some cases, a preliminary de novo review can be limited to a
determination of the impact of the excluded evidence on the overall
findings. If it is clear from the initial limited de novo review that the
excluded evidence could not have permissibly changed the ultimate
findings of the trial of fact, the judgment should not be vacated and
reviewed de novo. In the absence of a tainted fact-finding process, the
trial court’s ultimate findings are subject only to a manifest error
review.

Joseph v. Williams, 12-0675, p. 22 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/14/12), 105 So.3d 207, 221

(quoting Walley v. Vargas, 12-0022, p. 10 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/21/12), 104 So.3d 93,

101)(internal citations omitted).

Assuming the trial court erred in excluding the requests for admission from

evidence at trial, the trial court’s error was not consequential. An initial limited de

novo review of the excluded evidence—the requests for admission—reveals that it

would not have changed the ultimate findings of the trier of fact. The requests for

1

admission established only Cox’s ownership of the vault. As the majority

recognizes, the record is devoid of any evidence establishing “why the vault

collapsed or what defect allegedly existed.” Resort to a de novo review of the

record in this case is thus unwarranted. Applying a manifest error standard of

review, I would affirm.

For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

2