Phyllis Wilson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 10, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
PHYLLIS WILSON
VS.
LOUISIANA CITIZENS
PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION
No. 2023-CC-01320
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation - Applicant Defendant;
Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Calcasieu, Lake Charles City Court
Number(s) 23-157 - DIV. B, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) CW 23 -
00391;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 10, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
01/10/2024 "See News Release 001 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2023-CC-01320
P
HYLLIS WILSON
V
S.
L
OUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
O
n Supervisory Writ to the Lake Charles City Court, Parish of Calcasieu
P
ER CURIAM
On
January 9, 2023, plaintiff filed the instant suit against her insurer,
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”). Plaintiff seeks to
recover penalties pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973 based on
Citizens’ alleged failure to timely tender payments for losse s which occurred on
August 27, 2020 and October 20, 2020. Citizens filed an exception of prescription,
asserting the suit was filed in violation of its policy which provided “[n]o action can
be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is
started within two years after the date of loss.” [emphasis added].
The trial court denied the exception, and the court of appeal denied Citizens’
application for writs. Citizens now seeks relief in this court.
In arguing her suit is timely, plaintiff relies on Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., 2019-
00052 (La. 10/22/19), 285 So.3d 1062, for the proposition that an insurer’s bad faith
actions constitute a breach of its contractual obligation and is therefore subject to a
ten-year prescriptive period. However, Smith is factually distinguishable from the
instant case because it did not involve an insurance policy which contained a
contractual limitation on institution of suits by the insured.
In Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2010 -0105 (La. 3/15/11),
62 So.3d 721, 728, we recognized that “in the absence of a statutory prohibition, a
clause in an insurance policy fixing a reasonable time to institute suit is valid.” There
01/10/24

2

is no statutory prohibition which would preclude an i nsurer from adopting a two -
year limitation on the institution of a first-party suit based on breach of good faith
duties. To the contrary, La. R.S. 22:868(B) expressly provides that no policy “shall
contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement limitin g right of action against the
insurer to a period of less than twenty-four months next after the inception of the
loss when the claim is a first- party claim . . . .” [emphasis added]. The two-year
limitation in the Citizens’ policy is consistent with this statute.
Because plaintiff’s suit was filed more than two years from the date of her
loss, the claim is prescribed. The lower courts erred in denying Citizens’ exception
of prescription.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the trial court is reversed. The exception of prescription is sustained
and plaintiff’s suit against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation is
dismissed with prejudice.