Ronald Wilson and Kati Wilson v. Progressive Security Insurance Company

RONALD WILSON, ET AL * NO. 2025-C-0677

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
PROGRESSIVE SECURITY *
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET FOURTH CIRCUIT
AL *
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2023-02971, DIVISION “E”
Honorable Omar Mason
******
Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge
Monique G. Morial)

Pius A. Obioha
Mari T. Bartholomew
Travis L. Hull
Tensley M. Aldridge
K. Dominic Chukujekwu
PIUS A. OBIOHA & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1550 N. Broad Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

Darrin L. Forte
Ryan E. Bergeron
GARRISON, YOUNT, FORTE, MULCAHY, LLC
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED AND RENDERED
November 24, 2025

NEK
DLD
MGM

Relator, Progressive Security Insurance Company (“Progressive”), seeks

supervisory review of the district court’s September 15, 2025 judgment denying its

exception of no right of action. For the following reasons, we grant Progressive’s

writ, reverse the district court’s judgment, and render judgment dismissing this suit

against Progressive.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff/Respondents, Ronald and Katie1 Wilson

(collectively, the “Wilsons”), filed suit against Progressive for damages they

sustained in a motor vehicle accident (the “State” suit). Subsequently, on

November 1, 2023, the Wilsons also filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United

States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Bankruptcy”

suit). One of the conditions of their bankruptcy case required the Wilsons to

disclose any claims or lawsuits they had against third parties. However, the

Wilsons did not disclose their case against Progressive.

1 We note that “Katie” Wilson is also referred to as “Kati” and “Kate” in the record

before us. This Court will use “Katie” to refer to Ms. Wilson as that is the name
used in the federal bankruptcy case.

1

Progressive intervened in the Bankruptcy suit and filed a motion for

declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the Wilsons were judicially

estopped from pursuing their claim against Progressive and dismissing the State

suit. After hearing the matter and taking it under advisement, the bankruptcy court

granted Progressive’s motion in part and denied it in part. Although the bankruptcy

court found that the Wilsons’ were judicially estopped from pursuing their state

claim against Progressive because of their failure to disclose, it denied the request

to dismiss the State suit.

Thereafter, Progressive filed an exception of no right of action in the State

suit, arguing that the Wilsons had no right of action against it based on the

bankruptcy court’s judgment. The district court heard the exception on August 29,

2025, and denied it. This timely writ application followed.

DISCUSSION

Progressive raises one assignment of error in its writ application. That is, the

district court erred in finding that the Wilsons had a right of action in spite of the

bankruptcy court’s judgment that they were judicially estopped from pursuing or

receiving compensation in this suit.

“[A]n action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual

interest which he asserts.” La. C.C.P. art. 681. The peremptory exception of no

right of action questions “whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to

whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit.” Pri-Tal v.

Progressive Prop. Ins. Co., 2024-0531, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/14/25), 414 So. 3d

1064, 1073 (quoting Hurel v. Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2025-0049, p. 8 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 3/11/25), 414 So. 3d 778, 784). The purpose of the exception is “to

terminate a suit brought by one who has no interest in judicially enforcing the right

2

asserted.” N. Clark, L.L.C. v. Chisesi, 2016-0599, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/7/16),

206 So. 3d 1013, 1016 (quoting Stassi v. State, 2011-2264, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir.

9/13/12), 102 So. 3d 896, 898). As the exception presents a question of law, we

review the district court’s ruling de novo. See N. Clark, 2016-0599, p. 6, 206 So.

3d at 1017 (citing Peneguy v. Porteous, 2001-1503, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/15/02),

823 So. 2d 380, 384).

In this case, the district court denied Progressive’s exception based on the

bankruptcy court’s judgment. In that judgment, the bankruptcy court found that the

Wilsons were judicially estopped from pursuing this litigation. However, the

bankruptcy court also opined that this litigation is the property of the Wilsons’

bankruptcy estate that could be administered by a trustee in the event the Wilsons

converted the suit from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. Ultimately, the bankruptcy court

ordered that “the State Court Litigation remain an asset of the estate, never vesting

in the Wilsons.” (Emphasis added). Regardless of whether the Wilsons convert

their bankruptcy case to Chapter 7, the bankruptcy court’s judgment is clear—the

Wilsons do not have a vested interest in this action. In reviewing an exception of

no right of action, courts presume that the petition states a valid cause of action as

to some person, but they must question “whether the plaintiff in the particular case

is a member of the class that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the

litigation.” Pri-Tal, 2024-0531, p. 10, 414 So. 3d at 1073 (citation omitted). As the

Wilsons do not have a vested interest, they likewise do not have the right to pursue

this case. While their bankruptcy estate may have a right to the action, it is clear

that they do not, and thus, they are not proper parties to this suit.

We note that this situation has similarities to a previous case decided in this

Court. Progressive cites to Breaux v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist.,

3

SMG, to support its position that the Wilsons do not have a right to pursue this

litigation. 2024-0126 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/4/24), 390 So. 3d 293, writ denied 2024-

00788 (La. 11/14/24), 395 So. 3d 1183, cert. denied sub nom. 145 S. Ct. 1926, 221

L.Ed. 2d 665 (2025). Therein, the defendant had filed an exception of no right of

action, arguing that the plaintiff was judicially estopped from pursuing her claim in

state court because she failed to disclose the claim to her bankruptcy trustee during

the pendency of her bankruptcy case. The district court denied the defendant’s

exception of no right of action and ruled that the plaintiff was not judicially

estopped from pursuing her claim. Id. at p. 1, 390 So. 3d at 295. The Fourth Circuit

reversed, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to disclose her state court litigation with

the bankruptcy court judicially estopped her from pursuing the case, and, as a

result, she no longer had a right to pursue the litigation. Id. at p. 5, 390 So. 3d at

297. Unlike in Breaux, Progressive received a separate judgment from the

bankruptcy court declaring the Wilsons judicially estopped prior to filing its

exception of no right of action. As there is a valid judgment declaring the Wilsons

judicially estopped, there is no question that they are barred from pursuing this

underlying claim. In light of this, the district court erred in finding that the Wilsons

could still participate in the State suit and denying Progressive’s exception of no

right of action.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we grant Progressive’s writ application, reverse

the district court’s judgment denying its exception of no right of action, and render

judgment sustaining the exception of no right of action and dismissing this suit.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED AND RENDERED

4