Christy L. Duplantis v. Encompass Property and Casualty Company and Elenor J. Fondren

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DUPLANTIS NO. 2021 CW 1443
CHRISTY L.

VERSUS

ENCOMPASS PROPERTY AND MARCH 22, 2022
CASUALTY COMPANY AND ELEANOR
J. FONDREN

Encompass Casualty Company, applying for
In Re: Property and

writs, 32nd Judicial District Court,
supervisory
Parish of Terrebonne, No. 191338.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1153
states, "[ w] hen the action or defense asserted in the amended

petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or

occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the

the amendment relates back to the date of
original pleading,
the Furthermore, the Louisiana
filing original pleading."
Court has provided guidance for lower courts to
Supreme

determine whether Article 1153 allows an amendment to relate

back to the date of filing of the original petition. See Ray v.
Alexandria Mall, Through St. Paul Property & Liability Ins., 434

So. 2d 1083, 1087 ( La. 1983). Herein, the Supplemental and

Amending Petition for Damages filed by plaintiff/ respondent,

L. Duplantis, satisfies the criteria espoused by the
Christy
Supreme Court: ( 1) that the amended claim must arise out of the

same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original

2) that the purported substitute defendant must have
pleading, (
received notice of the institution of the action such that he

will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits,

3) that the purported substitute defendant must know or should

have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the
proper defendant, the action would have been brought
party
against him, and ( 4) that the purported substitute defendant

Accordingly, as
must not be a wholly new or unrelated defendant.
Duplantis' s Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages

relates back to her Original Petition for Damages, the district

in defendants/ relators, Encompass
court did not err denying
Property and Casualty Company' s, exception raising the objection
of prescription.

JMG
GH
WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DE UTY CLAROF COURT
FOR THE COURT