Louis R. Koerner, Jr. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London, Syndicates 0623 And 2623, Ms. Andrea St. Paul Bland And Mr. David Sinnott Bland

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 19, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
LOUIS R. KOERNER, JR.
VS.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S
LONDON, SYNDICATES 0623 AND 2623, MS.
ANDREA ST. PAUL BLAND AND MR.
DAVID SINNOTT BLAND
No. 2024-CC-00134
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Louis R. Koerner, Jr. - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Orleans Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 22-09768, Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-C-0811;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 19, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Genovese, J., would grant and docket.
PDG
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
03/19/2024 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
o. 2024-CC-00134
L
OUIS R. KOERNER, JR.
VS
.
CE
RTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, SYNDICATES
0623 AND 2623, MS. ANDREA ST. PAUL BLAND AND MR. DAVID
SINNOTT BLAND
On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
P
ER CURIAM
Plaintiff seeks review of a judgment of the trial court denying his motion for
new trial as untimely. Although plaintiff concedes his motion was filed outside of
the seven-day new trial delay set forth in La. Code Civ. P. art. 1974, he contends the
October 16, 2023 judgment which was the subject of the motion was interlocutory
in nature and subject to reconsideration.
The jurisprudence has recognized “a motion for new trial is a procedural
device applying only to final judgments.” Winston v. Martin , 34,424 (La. App. 2
Cir. 9/21/00), 801 So.2d 389, 39. The October 16, 2023 judgment is interlocutory
because it resolved less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories at issue
in the suit. In the absence of any language designating this judgment as final for
purposes of an immediate appeal, La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(2) provides the
judgment “may be revised at any time prior to rendition of the judgment adjudicating
all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
It is well-settled that prior to final judgment a trial court may, at its discretion
and on its own motion, change the result of interlocutory rulings it finds to be
erroneous. Zapata v. Seal, 2020-01148 (La. 9/30/21), 330 So.3d 175, 178; VaSalle
v.
Wa
l-Mart Stores, Inc ., 2001 -0462 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So.2d 331, 334 –35.
A
lthough we have never formally recognized whether a motion for reconsideration
03/19/24

2

was available in cases of interlocutory judgments, we have recognized a party may
ask the trial court to exercise its discretion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling. See
VaSalle, 801 So.2d at 337 (holding that because the trial judge had the right to
reconsider his interlocutory ruling, “he had the right to accomplish the same end
indirectly by acting on plaintiffs’ request that he reconsider his ruling”).
Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion as
untimely.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court with
instructions to treat plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as a request for the court to
exercise its discretion to reconsider its October 16, 2023 interlocutory ruling.