Gregory Chank v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 01, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
GREGORY CHANK
VS.
STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
No. 2024-C-01552
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Stripe-A-Zone-LA, LLC - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Number(s) 19-C-0608-
B, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) CA 24-20;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 01, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Guidry, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JDH
JLW
WJC
JBM
PDG
CRC
04/01/2025 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-C-01544
c/w
No. 2024-C-01552
GREGORY CHANK
VS.
STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry
PER CURIAM
Writs granted. Pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1), the burden on the party
moving for summary judgment “does not require him to negate all essential elements
of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the
absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's
claim, action, or defense.” When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported, an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his
pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. LSA-C.C.P. art. 967(B). Once a
motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the
failure of the non -moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute
mandates the granting of the motion.
Despite the mandates above, the court of appeal erroneously found that, “[a]s
the movers, it was DOTD's and Stripe -A-Zone's burden to establish that proper
signage was in place at the location of the accident.” To the contrary, and pursuant
to LSA -C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1), applicants were merely required to point out an
absence of evidence sufficient to establish one or more elements of the adverse
party’s claim, action, or defense . We do not find the application of LSA -R.S.

2

32:235(E) to be the salient issue here. While the defense may not have established
its applicability, it does not matter because the plaintiff did not put forward
competent summary judgment evidence to show a material issue of fact concerning
the liability of these defendants.
Applicants alleged an absence of factual support to establish that the road
work or traffic controls were somehow inadequate, improperly placed, or played any
part in causing the accident. The burden then shifted to respondent to produce
factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
that the road work or signage was inadequate or improperly placed such that it
created an unreasonable risk of harm that was known or should have been known by
applicants, as well as factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine
issue of material fact that the alleged defect that resulted from the road work or
inadequate or improperly placed signage was the cause-in-fact of plaintiff’s injuries.
There was no evidence presented sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine
issue of material fact in this case. The court of appeal therefore erred in vacating the
judgment of the district court and rendering judgment denying applicants’ motions.
As such, t he judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and the district court’s
judgment, wherein applicants’ motions for summary judgment were granted, is
reinstated.
WRITS GRANTED; JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE COURT VACATED;
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REINSTATED.