Alfrieda Onezime Mason v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-135

ALFRIEDA ONEZIME MASON

VERSUS

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20117387
HONORABLE KRISTIAN DENNIS EARLES, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, Phyllis M.
Keaty and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED;
MOTION TO REMAND DENIED.

Amy, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.

J. Lomax Jordan, Jr.
1817 West University Avenue
Lafayette, LA 70506
(337) 233-9984
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Alfrieda Onezime Mason

Thomas R. Hightower, III
Post Office Drawer 51288
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 233-0555
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company

COOKS, Judge.

The plaintiff, Alfrieda Onezime Mason, pursued recovery from her

homeowner’s insurer, Shelter Marine Insurance Company, after her home

sustained water damage. Although the insurer offered coverage for the event, it

rejected the plaintiff’s demand for various items, including plumbing costs

associated with broken plumbing and remediation costs necessitated by the

presence of flooring found to contain asbestos. The plaintiff filed this matter,

seeking damages as well as penalties and attorney fees. Following trial, the trial

court awarded the plaintiff repair costs, as well as penalties and attorney fees.

Both parties appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Mason alleges she discovered water on the floor of the kitchen and

laundry room of her home on the morning of September 5, 2011. Although a

plumber initially replaced the home’s hot water tank,1 the main valve to the house

was turned off after Ms. Mason found that water continued to seep into the home.

She contacted her homeowner’s insurer, Shelter, the following day. Ms. Mason

alleged in her petition that when her plumber returned on September 7, 2011, he

determined “that the water was coming from a broken pipe inside the foundation

slab.” She further stated that Shelter’s adjuster “instructed [her] to have the

plumber disconnect pipes from those within the foundation and re-route the

plumbing without utilizing the pipes within the foundation.” Ms. Mason asserted

that after the plumber did so, Shelter refused to pay for the cost of re-routing the

plumbing.

Ms. Mason alleged that her home sustained “extensive water damage to

floors in the utility room, kitchen, dining room, and den, which included seepage

into the walls.” She stated that “[t]he damaged flooring in those rooms matched
1
Ms. Mason’s counsel clarified at trial that the plaintiff did not seek recovery of costs
associated with the water heater.
2

and were part of a flooring system that also ran continuously into the living room,

hallway, front bathroom and closet.” However, Ms. Mason asserted Shelter “has

refused to pay for or reimburse the plaintiff for repairs to all such flooring[.]”

Notably, the record reflects that, in some areas, three levels of linoleum flooring

were atop the foundation. Testing determined that one of the levels of flooring

contained asbestos. Ms. Mason alleged, however, that the insurer “refused to pay

for or reimburse [her] for removal of the asbestos which would be required in order

to install flooring to replace the damaged floors.”

Ms. Mason asserted that, while Shelter provided certain sums, the payments

“were paid in insufficient amounts, and as a result, the plaintiff has been unable to

make repairs to her home, and is living in unsafe and inconvenient circumstances,

causing problems with her health.” Subject to sums paid by Shelter, Ms. Mason

sought various costs, including those associated with: the re-routing of the

plumbing; drying of the walls; abatement and removal of the flooring containing

asbestos; replacement of flooring in the affected rooms; replacement of affected

carpentry work; the disassembly, reassembly, and repair of a built-in entertainment

center in order to dry the concrete beneath it, and “[s]uch other damages as will be

shown at trial.” In this latter claim, Ms. Mason sought recovery of costs associated

with temporary relocation while the asbestos abatement was performed.

Additionally, Ms. Mason contended that Shelter’s adjustment of the claim and

failure to make payment under the described circumstances warranted the

imposition of penalties and attorney fees. See La.R.S. 22:1892; La.R.S. 22:1973.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Ms. Mason and

awarded damages as follows: $20,591.96 for net costs of repair ($27,140.00 in

total damages subject to a credit for the $6,548.04 in prior payments); $2,000.00

for costs associated with the re-routing of the plumbing from the slab; $750.00 in

“future additional living expenses for hotel costs incurred during the course of

3

repairs related to this claim[.]” The trial court also awarded penalties in the

amount of $10,000.00 and attorney fees in the amount of $10,000.00.

Thereafter, Ms. Mason filed a “Rule Nisi Pertaining to Litigation and Court

Costs, Motion for Partial New Trial on Limited Issues of Quantum of Attorney

Fees Pursuant to R.S. 22:1982(B) and Quantum of Penalties Pursuant to R.S.

22:1973(C), and Incorporated Memorandum.” With regard to the motion for

partial new trial, Ms. Mason sought an evidentiary hearing on the issue of penalties

and attorney fees. The trial court denied the Rule in all respects. 2 Both parties

appeal.

Prior to filing her brief, Ms. Mason filed a “Motion to Remand And Request

to Suspend Briefing Delays.” While the motion to suspend briefing deadlines was

denied, the motion for remand was deferred to the panel on the merits of the

appeal.

In its brief, Shelter asserts that the trial court erred in: 1) awarding the full

amount of estimated work since the work had not been performed; 2) awarding

costs for asbestos abatement; 3) awarding the cost of the plumbing work associated

with re-routing the broken water pipe; 4) awarding an amount for additional living

expenses as they were not actually incurred; 5) failing to apply the $1,000.00

policy deductible to the award of costs associated with the estimate; and in 6)

finding it in violation of La.R.S. 22:1892 and La.R.S. 22:1973.

2
The record reflects that the trial court initially wrote the word, “denied,” across the proposed
order. After each party appealed, a panel of this court issued a rule to show cause why the
appeals should not be dismissed as premature, citing Egle v. Egle, 05-0531 (La.App. 3 Cir.
2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780. In response, the parties supplemented the appellate record with an
amended judgment of March 10, 2016 wherein the trial court denied the motion for new trial.
Thereafter, this court determined that, pursuant to Richard v. Lafayette Fire and Police Civil
Service Board, 07-1010 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/19/07), 966 So.2d 685, “the March 10, 2016 amended
judgment, which constitutes a proper judgment for the denial of the motion for new trial, served
to cure the defect which had made the instant appeals premature.” See Alfrieda Onezime Mason
v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, 16-0135, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/16) (an unpublished
judgment and opinion). The panel recalled the rule. Id.

4

In her appeal, Ms. Mason argues the trial court erred in: 1) awarding “an

unreasonably low amount” of attorney fees without providing her an opportunity to

present evidence; 2) failing to award the highest penalty available under La.R.S.

22:1892 and 22:1973; and in 3) failing to tax litigation costs as expenses.

Discussion

Awarded Costs

Shelter’s challenges the trial court’s award of costs as estimated by Ms.

Mason’s expert in general construction, arguing the estimate provided by its

chosen contracting company was more reliable and precise as to the costs of the

particular items to be repaired. Additionally, Shelter contends the trial court erred

in awarding the full amount of the estimated costs as Ms. Mason had not

completed the repairs as, it argues, was required by her particular policy. We will

first address the policy framework.

Completion of Work

The declaration sheet of Ms. Mason’s policy indicates she paid an additional

premium for “Expanded Restoration Cost Coverage.” Referencing that coverage,

Shelter argues that the trial court erred in awarding Ms. Mason full replacement

cost, despite Ms. Mason not having completed the work. Shelter contends the

policy instead anticipates that only “actual cash value” is paid in advance of work

performed. The policy defines “actual cash value” as “total restoration cost less

depreciation”3 and further defines “[t]otal restoration cost” as “the restoration

3
“Depreciation” is defined by the policy as:

an amount of money that is deducted from the amount we actually pay. That
amount is based on the decrease in the value of the property since it was new. It
applies to any part that must be repaired or replaced to allow for the repair or
replacement of a damaged part, whether or not that part itself is damaged. The
condition, age, extent of use, and obsolescence of the part, and the property as a
whole, will be considered in determining depreciation. Depreciation also
applies to the labor and applicable sales tax necessary to complete covered
repairs and replacements. We will calculate the percentage by which the
materials necessary to the replacement have decreased in value, based on the
5

cost of all of the damaged parts of the covered property that were damaged in one

accident.” The policy’s “Amendatory Endorsement – Louisiana” defines

“restoration cost,” in pertinent part, as follows:

44. Restoration cost means the amount of money it will, or did,
cost to restore the form and function of the damaged part of
covered property with property of equivalent construction, for
an equivalent use, on the same premises by:

(a) replacing it; or

(b) repairing it,

whichever is less expensive.

Restoration cost can be based on a combination of (a) and (b)
above, if some parts of the covered property are replaced and
other parts are repaired. Restoration cost includes:

(a) the cost of labor using construction techniques commonly
used by the building trades in the geographical area of
the covered property; and

(b) the cost of parts and materials of like kind and like
quality, to the extent those are available in the
geographical area of the covered property;

Restoration cost does not include:

....

(h) general contractors’ overhead and profit.

While depreciation is accounted for within the calculation of “actual cash

value,” Ms. Mason’s coverage included “Expanded Restoration Cost Coverage,” as

was noted above. Shelter’s adjuster acknowledged at trial that the expanded

coverage provision was applied to Ms. Mason’s claim and the provision anticipates

the return of the depreciation cost for various items to the insured, as well as a

“general contractors’ overhead and profit.”4 The adjuster testified Paragraph D

factors stated above, and apply that same percentage when calculating the
depreciation applicable to the labor and sales tax.
4
The latter item is not included in the above definition of “restoration cost.”

6

(for the flooring) and Paragraph E (for remaining items) were considered

applicable to Ms. Mason’s claim. Those provisions, as relevant herein, indicate:

(D) This provision applies to covered losses to the following items
if they are permanently attached to the residence premises: . . .
(iii) floor surfaces[.]:

(1) When we agree with you as to the restoration cost of the
damaged part of those items, we will, at our option, do
one of the following:

(a) pay the actual cash value of the damaged part of
the covered property;
(b) purchase replacement property of like kind and
quality; or
(c) pay the limit of coverage stated in this policy as
applicable to the item.

(2) No further payment will be made unless, within one year5
of the date of the loss:

5
When asked by counsel at trial whether “any time limitation” was applicable to the claim in
terms of when she had to complete the work, Shelter’s adjuster responded: “Yes; two (2) years
from the date of the loss.” We here reference the time period set forth in the policy. In any
event however, Ms. Mason testified that she had not performed the work at the time of trial,
explaining that she did not have the funds to perform the work.
7

(a) all the repairs and replacements necessary to
restore the form and function of the damaged part
of the covered property have actually been
completed; and
(b) the total restoration cost is agreed upon by you
and us.

We will then pay you:

(c) the difference between the amount we have
already paid you and the restoration cost of that
particular part, plus
(d) any reasonable and necessary charges you actually
incurred for general contractors’ overhead and
profit; or
(e) if the amount we have already paid you plus the
amounts payable under (c) and, (d), immediately
above, total more than the limit of liability shown
in the Declarations applicable to the particular
loss, we will pay you the difference between the
amount we have already paid you and that limit of
liability.

(3) All payments made under this provision will be applied
against the limits of Coverage A or B,6 whichever may
apply to the specific loss.

(4) If we make a payment to you under this provision, we
may, at our option take all or part of the covered item for
which that payment was made.

(E) This provision applies to covered losses to all items that are not
included in sections (B), (C),7 or (D), above:

(1) We will estimate the total restoration cost of the
damaged part of those items. Based on that estimate, we
will estimate the actual cash value of the damaged part
of those items and will, at our option, do one of the
following:

(a) pay the estimated restoration cost of the damaged
part of the covered property;
(b) pay the estimated actual cash value of the damaged
part of the covered property;
(c) purchase replacement property of like kind and
quality; or
(d) pay the limit of coverage stated in this policy as
applicable to the item.

6
Paragraph (A) pertains to consideration of the policy’s deductible, whereas Paragraph (B)
applies to covered losses to all personal property.”
7
Paragraph (C) “applies to covered losses to structures that are permanently attached to the
residence premises but are not buildings[.]”
8

(2) No further payment will be made unless, within one year
of the date of the loss:

(a) all the repairs and replacements necessary to
restore the form and function of the damaged part
of the covered property have actually been
completed; and
(b) the total restoration cost is agreed upon by you
and us.

We will then pay you:

(c) the difference between the amount we have
already paid you and the restoration cost of that
particular part, plus
(d) any reasonable and necessary charges you actually
incurred for general contractors’ overhead and
profit; or
(e) if the amount we have already paid you plus the
amounts payable under (c) and (d), immediately
above, total more than the limit of liability shown
in the Declarations applicable to the particular
loss, we will pay you the difference between the
amount we have already paid you and that limit of
liability.

(3) All payments made under this provision will be applied
against the limits of Coverage A or B, whichever may
apply to the specific loss.

(4) If we pay to replace an item under this provision, we
may, at our option take all or part of the covered item for
which that payment was made.

Thus, Shelter contends that Paragraphs D and E anticipate the return of the

previously withheld depreciation amounts and the contractors’ overhead and profit,

but only after the repairs are completed within the prescribed time.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2045 explains that: “Interpretation of a contract

is the determination of the common intent of the parties.” In the event that “the

words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no

further interpretation may be made in search of the parties’ intent.” La.Civ.Code

art. 2046. “An insurance policy is a contract between the insured and insurer and

has the effect of law between them.” Gorman v. City of Opelousas, 13-1734, p. 5

9

(La. 7/1/14), 148 So.3d 888, 892. See also La.Civ.Code art. 1983. After review of

the policy language at issue, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling.

When placed within the context of Paragraphs D and E, Shelter’s argument

speaks to a process whereby it is working in agreement with its insured. In

particular, it provides that the additional payment will be made after the

completion of the work within one year “and [ ] the total restoration cost is agreed

upon by you and us.” (Emphasis added.)

However, in this case the parties disagreed as to the total restoration cost and

to whether Ms. Mason’s claims of asbestos abatement and re-routing of the

plumbing were covered items.8 Shelter’s interpretation of the provision, under the

present circumstances, would require Ms. Mason to perform and personally

finance work in accordance with the policy terms, while it simultaneously denied

coverage under that same policy.

We also find no merit in Shelter’s suggestion that Orleans Parish School

Board v. Lexington Insurance Company, 12-1686 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/5/13), 118

So.3d 1203, indicates that the time limitation for repairs to property is applicable

when the insured represents that it had insufficient funds to pay for the repairs.

Although that case involved an insured’s failure to repair property within the

period specified by the subject policy, it is distinguishable because the plaintiff

therein did not make a specific proof of loss within the prescribed period. Thus,

the fourth circuit determined that La.Civ.Code art. 17729 was not applicable. In

contrast, Ms. Mason made specific proofs of loss regarding the plumbing and

asbestos removal claims in this matter. Yet, the claims were rejected on a

8
While Shelter extended various tenders, those tenders did not represent the full amount in
dispute. Central in the dispute was the parties’ continued dispute regarding the plumbing and
asbestos abatement issues. Thus, the parties did not reach “agreement” as to “total restoration
cost.”
9
La.Civ.Code art. 1772 provides: “A condition is fulfilled when it is not fulfilled because of the
fault of a party with an interest contrary to the fulfillment.”

10

coverage basis by Shelter. Under these circumstances, we find the trial court did

not err in awarding full replacement costs.

Quantum

We next address Shelter’s argument that the trial court awarded an excessive

sum. Each party presented estimates from their respective contracting companies

as to the required work in Ms. Mason’s home. Paul Doherty of Coastal Sales, Inc.,

accepted by the trial court as an expert in general construction, testified that Ms.

Mason hired him to provide a bid on work that needed to be performed. Mr.

Doherty reviewed the April 17, 2014 bid, a copy of which was introduced into

evidence, explaining that it included an estimate for asbestos abatement

($5,400.00) to be performed by a subcontractor.10 Mr. Doherty testified the

abatement work would require approximately three to four days and that Ms.

Mason could not be in the home during that period. He estimated that the entire

repair would take three to four weeks, but that he would try to accommodate Ms.

Mason during that time. However, he included the cost of an on-site storage unit

for her property while the work was ongoing and explained that once the project

was complete, the furniture and appliances would be reset. Mr. Doherty noted that,

among other things, the bid included expenses for flooring material, the installation

of the new flooring, painting, and the replacement of certain carpentry, including

the removal of a built-in entertainment center. The Coastal Sales, Inc. total bid

was $27,140.00, which included line items for profit ($2,360.00) and overhead

($1,180.00).

Shelter relied upon an estimate by S&S Renovators, Inc. Scott Sanders, a

project manager for S&S Renovators, was permitted to offer fact testimony

regarding the estimate, but was not qualified as an expert. The S&S Renovators

10
In its summary, the Coastal Sales bid listed proposal items as: “on site storage unit”; “remove
and reset furniture, appliances, etc”; “floor removal (asbestos tile)”; “carpentry”; “paint”; “floor
install”; and “carpentry”. The bid further included line items for each component of the bid.
11

bid reported a “net claim” of $11,868.05. In his explanation of the bid, Mr.

Sanders noted that S&S Renovators reported measurements for the affected area,

but did not include costs associated with a storage unit and the replacement of a

pantry. And, while it included a subcontractor’s bid for removal of “three layers of

vinyl flooring including the bottom layer which is asbestos tile” ($2,303.00), Mr.

Sanders reported that he did not know whether the subcontractor was certified for

asbestos abatement. As stated above, Shelter denied coverage for any increased

expense associated with that element.

In ruling, the trial court relied upon the Coastal Sales bid, awarding the

$27,140.00 listed amount, subject to amounts previously paid. Shelter suggests

that the Coastal Sales estimate was not reliable as it included items not covered by

the policy, was predicated upon imprecise measurements, and included only

general information regarding subcontractor and material estimates. It also

suggests that the estimate included for the storage unit was provided without

adequate consideration of whether furniture and appliances could be moved to

other areas of the home while work was underway. Finally, Shelter notes the

Coastal Sales bid included $5,400.00 for asbestos abatement, but that Ms. Mason

presented additional testimony from an expert in asbestos abatement who offered

an estimate of $4,395.00 for that work. These factors, Shelter asserts, rendered the

Coastal Sales figure unreliable.

The supreme court has explained that a trial court’s finding of fact may not

be reversed in the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Snider v.

Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 14-1964 (La. 5/5/15), 169 So.3d 319. In the event

“there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between

them cannot be manifestly erroneous.” Watkins v. Lake Charles Mem’l Hosp., 13-

1137, p. 24 (La. 3/25/14), 144 So.3d 944, 961. If those findings are based on

determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error standard

12

requires great deference to the findings of fact. Id. “Indeed, where the factfinder’s

determination is based on its decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more

witnesses, that finding can virtually never be manifestly erroneous. This rule

applies equally to the evaluation of expert testimony, including the evaluation and

resolution of conflicts in expert testimony.” Id.

Applying that standard, we find no merit in Shelter’s contention that the trial

court erred in relying on Ms. Mason’s evidence. While the Coastal Sales estimate

did not offer the type of specificity as that offered by S&S Renovators, it was

rendered by an expert in general construction able to provide opinion testimony as

to the project’s needs. In addition to the fact that the Coastal Sales estimate

included costs for certified asbestos abatement, it also included items such as the

storage unit that the trial court could have found reasonable under the

circumstances. In contrast, the S&S Renovators estimate was presented by a

project supervisor who was unable to express the type of opinion testimony offered

by Mr. Doherty. Further, the Coastal Sales estimate was generated in 2014, with

Mr. Doherty explaining that labor costs had increased since the 2014 bid. We also

note that the S&S Renovators was generated in 2011, whereas Mr. Doherty

explained that he had observed an increase in labor costs between 2011 and the

time of the August 2015 trial. Finding the trial court’s determination as to fact and

credibility reasonable, we will not disturb that ruling.

Asbestos Abatement

Shelter next argues its policy did not cover additional expenses associated

with the removal and abatement of the asbestos flooring tile found in Ms. Mason’s

home. Thus, it contends the trial court erred in awarding those expenses rather

than the lesser flooring removal expenses estimated in the S&S Renovators bid,

which did not account for those costs. Shelter references the policy exclusions as

follows:

13

EXCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO COVERAGES A & B

We do not cover any loss or damage if it would not have occurred in
the absence of any event or condition listed below. . . .

....

1. Enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the
construction, use, repair or demolition of a building or other
structure. This exclusion includes the increased costs incurred
to comply with an ordinance or law. We do cover loss caused
by actions of civil authorities to prevent the spread of a fire, if
that fire is caused by a peril we insure against.

Shelter points out that both the testimony of Ms. Mason’s expert in asbestos

abatement, Raul Viera, and his written estimates indicate that removal of the

subject tiles would require compliance with state and federal regulations. 11 Mr.

Viera confirmed that removal of non-asbestos-containing material is less expensive

than the removal of asbestos-containing material and explained some of the

additional procedures and safeguards that are required in the latter instance.

Similarly, Shelter notes that Ms. Mason’s estimates regarding the cost of the

asbestos-compliant work were significantly higher than that offered by S&S

Renovators.

We find no error in the trial court’s award of damages in this regard.12 In

Haas v. Audubon Indemnity Co., 98-566 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/21/98), 722 So.2d

11
The “Project Understanding” sections of Mr. Viera’s October 2011 and April 2014 estimates
indicate that:

There is a ~ 735 sq. ft. of single (1) layer ACM floor tile & mastic material overlain by
two (2) layers of non-ACM flooring in the Kitchen, Dining, Living Rm, Utility Rm,
Hallway, and Bathroom of the house located at 209 Lita Dr., in Lafayette, Louisiana, that
needs to be removed in compliance with state and federal regulations.

The “Scope of Work” aspect of the evaluations reported, in part, that: “Pelican Environmental
Services will provide the labor, materials and equipment to abate and dispose of the ACM
described above from the subject residence in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1001, 1926.58, and
LAC 33:III-5151-5103-5107 guidelines.”
12
In oral reasons for ruling, the trial court stated that:

And then the asbestos removal. I mean, countless times people have testified in here
that the purpose of the policy was to put them back [] whole. I haven’t seen anything that
request [sic] anything but you being put back whole, which means scrape up the old
floor, put back the new floor. The way I see that limitation in the policy about laws that
14

1022, writ granted in part, writ denied in part, 98-2885 (La. 2/5/99), 737 So.2d

736,13 this court considered a matter in which a vacant commercial building

sustained significant damage due to vandalism and related flooding of the

premises. As here, the insurer in Haas rejected the insured’s claim for the

additional cost for the removal of asbestos-containing flooring. The insurer cited a

portion of its policy that excluded damage caused by “[t]he enforcement of any

ordinance or law” that regulated the construction, use or repair of the premises.14

Id. at 1028. This court rejected that claim, observing that the removal of the

asbestos-containing matter did not result from an enforcement of a regulation. Id.

Rather, “[t]he costs of asbestos abatement were necessary because of the flooding

which arose out of the vandalism to the building.” Id. at 1029. See also Royal

Cloud Nine, LLC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 08-0034 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/11/08), 987

So.2d 355, writ denied, 08-1551 (La. 10/10/08), 993 So.2d 1286, writ denied, 08-

require increased costs is just like the case you quoted me where the whole building has
to rewired [sic]. Some wiring gets messed up and then now Shelter would have to pay
for the whole building to be rewired. In this case the floor got messed up right here.
Shelter’s not going to have to pay for the whole house to be asbestos abated, but the floor
where it got messed up where the damage occurred to be asbestos related. So, we’re not
shifting the burden onto Shelter to cause them to have to redo the whole house, we’re
shifting the burden on them to undo and fix the floor to put them back whole. And so
that’s my reasoning on that.
13
While the supreme court granted the writ in part to amend the judgment to delete the award of
penalties and attorney fees in the case, the insurer’s writ application was otherwise denied.
14
As excerpted in Haas, 722 So.2d at 1028, the pertinent exclusion in that case provided:

B. EXCLUSIONS

1. We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of
the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other
cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence of loss.

a. Ordinance or law.

The enforcement of any ordinance or law:

(1) Regulating the construction, use or repair of any property; or

(2) Requiring the tearing down of any property, including the cost of
removing its debris.

(Emphasis added.)

15

1568 (La. 10/10/08), 993 So.2d 1287 (wherein the fourth circuit determined that an

ordinance or law exclusion did not preclude payment of the increased costs of a

slate roof required by the Vieux Carre Commission for the insured historic

property damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Rather, the fourth circuit observed that

the hurricane caused the damage to the roof, not the enforcement of the

Commission’s requirements). Similarly, in this case, the costs necessitated in the

flooring’s removal clearly resulted from the plumbing failure. It did not result

from the “enforcement of any ordinance or law” regulating the repair as is required

for application of the exclusion. Instead, and was the case in Haas, the insured’s

demand in this case involves the need to comply with pertinent construction

requirements.

The present instance of compliance differs from the factual situations

presented in the jurisprudence cited by Shelter. Ordinance and law exclusions

were found applicable in both Sweeney v. City of Shreveport, 584 So.2d 1248

(La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1057 (La.1991) and Estopinal v. Parish of

St. Bernard, 09-1382 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/24/10), 32 So.3d 991. However, both of

those cases involved homes alleged to have been improperly demolished pursuant

to the respective governing bodies’ attempts to enforce ordinances regarding

demolition of property. Thus, the insureds in those cases sought damages

stemming from the “enforcement” of those ordinances. Ms. Mason contrarily

seeks damages incurred from the plumbing malfunction and the related damage to

her house. The increased repair amount relates only to compliance with applicable

law. The trial court properly awarded the additional expenses associated with the

removal and abatement of the asbestos flooring tile.

16

Plumbing Costs

Shelter next challenges the trial court’s awarding of costs associated with the

re-routing of the plumbing, arguing the policy excludes that coverage as follows:

EXCLUSIONS APPLICABLE TO COVERAGES A & B

We do not cover any loss or damage if it would not have occurred in
the absence of any event or condition listed below. . . .

....

10. Wear and tear; marring or scratching; deterioration; inherent
vice; latent defect; mechanical breakdown; leakage of any chemical or
petroleum product from a storage container; rust[.]

Shelter’s adjuster testified the exclusion was found applicable after he spoke with

the plumbing service that responded to the water problem and was told that “the

galvanized pipe had rusted and failed.”15 He further testified that, absent evidence

of “settlement,” “that leaves only wear and tear, like I said, in the absence of

anything else that could have possibly caused it.” Shelter’s claim supervisor

further testified that given the explanation of wear and tear by the plumber, there

was no need for additional examination of the premises to discover the cause of the

break.

In its oral ruling, the trial court largely discussed the plumbing issue in the

context of whether Shelter’s investigation was adequate. The trial court further

explained that his understanding of the adjuster’s conversation with the plumber

involved discussion of the water heater and that he talked “to him about what he

saw, not what was under the slab.”

The law is clear an “insurer bears the burden of proving that a loss falls

within a policy exclusion.” Supreme Serv. & Spec. Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc.,

06-1827, p. 6 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 634, 639. Given this standard of review, we

find no error in the trial court’s ruling. It is clear that any discussion between the

15
The adjuster also spoke about the plumber’s replacement of the water heater. However, Ms.
Mason did not pursue recovery of that item.
17

adjuster and plumbing service as to causation was speculative in nature as the slab

was not broken to locate the source of the leak. Additionally, the plumber who

responded to the incident explained in his deposition that he did not know what

caused the break and further remarked that he did not know what type of pipe was

underneath the floor. He specifically denied that he knew that the break was due to

wear and tear. Simply, in light of this type of speculative causation, the record

supports the trial court’s conclusion that Shelter did not meet its burden of proving

that the re-routing of the plumbing was excluded by the policy.

Living Expenses

Shelter also disputes the trial court’s award of $750.00 “in future additional

living expenses for hotel costs incurred during the course of repairs related to this

claim[.]”16 As it argued above with regard to the award of full restoration costs

and asbestos abatement when the repairs had not been made, Shelter asserts that its

policy offers coverage only for necessary expenses actually incurred, referencing

the following language:

1. What to Do In Case Of Loss

If a covered loss occurs, the insured must take all of the
following actions if applicable to that loss:
....

(g) Produce receipts for any increased costs you incur to
maintain your standard of living while you dwell
elsewhere.

We find no merit in this claim. The subject language addresses a “covered

loss.” Shelter denied that coverage existed for the asbestos abatement, but by this

argument simultaneously asserts that Ms. Mason was required to have the work

performed, incurring increased costs for temporary relocation. However, Ms.

Mason made demand on Shelter via this action, seeking money damages associated

with the denial of coverage. In shaping a final judgment awarding such damages,
16
Mr. Doherty and Mr. Viera both explained that Ms. Mason will not be able to live in the home
while the asbestos abatement is performed.
18

the trial court correctly “indicate[d] the amount of recovery with certainty and

precision.” Kimsey v. Nat. Auto. Ins. Co., 13-856, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14),

153 So.3d 1035, 1038. An award otherwise based on a future contingency does

not constitute a proper judgment. Id.

Deductible

Shelter also seeks a reduction in the damages awarded due to the policy’s

$1,000.00 deductible. We will not modify the trial court’s award as the record

indicates that Ms. Mason’s deductible was accounted for at the time that Shelter

tendered its initial $924.85 payment for its estimate of the loss.17

Penalties and Attorney Fees

Both parties appeal the trial court’s award of penalties and attorney fees.

Initially, we will address Shelter’s argument that the trial court erred in finding it

was arbitrary and capricious in its adjustment of the claim. It maintains its adjuster

relied upon the opinion of Ms. Mason’s plumber regarding the wear and tear

causation of the plumbing issue. It further suggests that it properly construed the

language of its ordinance or law exclusion in rejecting Ms. Mason’s claim for

increased costs associated with asbestos abatement.

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that

penalties were appropriate. See Sultana Corp. v. Jewelers Mut. Ins. Co., 03-0360

(La. 12/3/03), 860 So.2d 1112 (providing that the trial court’s grant of penalties is

17
On September 8, 2011, Shelter issued payment to Ms. Mason in the amount of
$924.85. The exhibit in this regard includes correspondence dated September 7, 2011 in
which the claims adjuster explained to Ms. Mason that:

We have investigated your claim and estimated the amount of covered loss. That
estimate is enclosed. We have also enclosed a draft, which is the actual cash
value less your deductible. Here is how we arrived at this payment:

Total Restoration Cost $3,849.77
Less: Depreciation $1,924.92
Less: Deductible $1,000.00
Less: Amount over the applied limit $0.00
Net Payment $924.85

19

discretionary). As discussed above, the record reveals the speculative nature of the

conclusion that the plumbing issue was attributable to wear and tear or

deterioration. As for Shelter’s denial of the asbestos removal claim, and although

not cited by either the trial court or the parties, a previously reported case from this

circuit rejected an insurer’s argument that an ordinance or law exclusion relieved it

of coverage for the removal of asbestos-containing flooring. Haas, 722 So.2d

1022.

In her appeal, Ms. Mason seeks an increase in the quantum of the penalties

and attorney fees. By her motion to remand, Ms. Mason asks that this court return

the matters of penalties, attorney fees, and various costs to the trial court for the

entry of a greater penalty and for the introduction of evidence regarding attorney

fees and costs.

In her petition, Ms. Mason cited both La.R.S. 22:1973 and La.R.S. 22:1892

in her request for penalties and attorney fees. In pertinent part, the former statute

permits the recovery of penalties for the failure to pay a claim in good faith as

follows:

A. An insurer, including but not limited to a foreign line and
surplus line insurer, owes to his insured a duty of good faith and fair
dealing. The insurer has an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly
and promptly and to make a reasonable effort to settle claims with the
insured or the claimant, or both. Any insurer who breaches these
duties shall be liable for any damages sustained as a result of the
breach.

B. Any one of the following acts, if knowingly committed or
performed by an insurer, constitutes a breach of the insurer’s duties
imposed in Subsection A of this Section:

....

(5) Failing to pay the amount of any claim due any person
insured by the contract within sixty days after receipt of satisfactory
proof of loss from the claimant when such failure is arbitrary,
capricious, or without probable cause.

....

20

C. In addition to any general or special damages to which a
claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the claimant may
be awarded penalties assessed against the insurer in an amount not to
exceed two times the damages sustained or five thousand dollars,
whichever is greater. Such penalties, if awarded, shall not be used by
the insurer in computing either past or prospective loss experience for
the purpose of setting rates or making rate filings.

La.R.S. 22:1973.

Additionally, Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1892 provides for the

payment of both penalties and attorney fees as follows:

A. (1) All insurers issuing any type of contract, other than those
specified in R.S. 22:1811, 1821, and Chapter 10 of Title 23 of the
Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, shall pay the amount of any claim
due any insured within thirty days after receipt of satisfactory proofs
of loss from the insured or any party in interest. The insurer shall
notify the insurance producer of record of all such payments for
property damage claims made in accordance with this Paragraph.

....

(4) All insurers shall make a written offer to settle any property
damage claim, including a third-party claim, within thirty days after
receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss of that claim.

B. (1) Failure to make such payment within thirty days after
receipt of such satisfactory written proofs and demand therefor or
failure to make a written offer to settle any property damage claim,
including a third-party claim, within thirty days after receipt of
satisfactory proofs of loss of that claim, as provided in Paragraphs
(A)(1) and (4) of this Section, respectively, or failure to make such
payment within thirty days after written agreement or settlement as
provided in Paragraph (A)(2) of this Section when such failure is
found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, shall
subject the insurer to a penalty, in addition to the amount of the loss,
of fifty percent damages on the amount found to be due from the
insurer to the insured, or one thousand dollars, whichever is greater,
payable to the insured, or to any of said employees, or in the event a
partial payment or tender has been made, fifty percent of the
difference between the amount paid or tendered and the amount found
to be due as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs. Such
penalties, if awarded, shall not be used by the insurer in computing
either past or prospective loss experience for the purpose of setting
rates or making rate filings.

As these statutory provisions relate to the same misconduct by the insurer, the

statute that permits the greater penalty supersedes the other. Katie Realty, Ltd. v.

Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 12-0588 (La. 10/16/12), 100 So.3d 324 (citing

21

Calogero v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 99-1625 (La. 1/19/00), 753 So.2d 170).

In her argument to this court, Ms. Mason notes that the trial court awarded

her a total of $23,341.96 (combining repair costs, plumbing costs, and relocation

expenses)18 and, thus, per La.R.S. 22:1892(B)(1), the penalty awarded should have

been awarded in the amount of $11,670.98 as that is reflective of “fifty percent of

the difference between the amount paid or tendered and the amount found to be

due[.]”19 She suggests that the trial court awarded the $10,000.00 penalty under

the discretionary formula of La.R.S. 22:1973(C), which more generally describes

the penalty available as “an amount not to exceed two times the damages sustained

or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater.” (Emphasis added.)

After considering both parties’ respective arguments, we maintain the trial

court’s award of $10,000.00 in penalties. While Ms. Mason asserts that penalties

were due for the entirety of the claim, the trial court’s reasons for ruling addressed

only the plumbing and the asbestos abatement issues. It did not state that it found

Shelter’s adjustment of the claim, in all regards, to be arbitrary and capricious.

Thus, per the trial court’s reasons, it appears that the penalty related to the awards

for plumbing ($2,000.00) and costs associated with the asbestos removal

($5,400.00 per the Coastal Sales estimate and $750.00 for relocation expenses). If

the formula of La.R.S. 22:1892(B)(1)(“fifty percent of the difference between the

amount paid or tendered and the amount found to be due”) were used to calculate

the penalty as urged by Ms. Mason, it would not exceed the $10,000.00 awarded

pursuant to La.R.S. 22:1937. Thus, we will leave that award intact.

For the same reasons, we maintain the trial court’s award of attorney fees,

available upon a finding that failure to tender payment as required by La.R.S.
18
We note that in her motion for remand, Ms. Mason takes account of the judgment’s credit for payments previously
made, whereas her appellant’s and appellee’s briefs do not.
19
In her submissions to this court, Ms. Mason references both of La.R.S. 22:1892(B)(1)’s alternative awards of
“fifty percent damages on the amount found to be due from the insurer to the insured, or one thousand dollars,
whichever is greater” and “fifty percent of the difference between the amount paid or tendered and the amount found
to be due[.]”

22

22:1892(A)(1)-(4) was arbitrary, capricious or without probable case. See La.R.S.

22:1892(B)(1). While Ms. Mason suggests that the trial court erred in awarding

$10,000.00 without accepting evidence, we observe that, at the time the trial court

awarded that figure, she had not sought to introduce evidence regarding the

appropriate amount. Rather, Ms. Mason’s counsel simply requested “$65,000.00

in attorney fees” during closing argument. The trial court thereafter awarded

$10,000.00, without objection on the record by Ms. Mason. Instead, by the partial

motion for new trial, Ms. Mason sought a hearing for the introduction of evidence

on the factors enunciated in Covington v. McNeese State University, 12-2182 (La.

5/7/13), 118 So.3d 343. The trial court denied that motion. Considering the

particulars of that timeline, we find no abuse of discretion in that denial. Instead,

Ms. Mason’s counsel asked for attorney fees, in a specific amount, at the time of

trial, but submitted no evidence at that time. Despite the lack of particular

evidence, the trial court made that award, although not in the amount sought by

Ms. Mason. We find no abuse of discretion in that figure based on the record

before the court. See Conner v. Bridgefield Cas. Ins. Co., 15-621, pp. 20-21

(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/15), 185 So.3d 754, 767 (explaining that “a trial court has the

discretion to set the amount based upon its own knowledge, the evidence, and its

observation of the case and the record”), writ denied, 16-0739 (La. 6/3/16), 192

So.3d 747. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in

awarding $10,000.00 in attorney fees for the work performed at the trial level.

Ms. Mason filed her own appeal and requested additional attorney fees.

“Generally, when an award for attorney’s fees is granted at the trial level,

additional attorney’s fees are proper for work done on appeal. This is to keep the

appellate judgment consistent with the underlying judgment.” Wilczewski v.

Brookshire Grocery Store, 08-718, p. 18 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/28/09), 2 So.3d 1214,

1226, writ denied, 09-456 (La.4/13/09), 5 So.3d 170. After reviewing the record,

23

given the time and effort necessitated to successfully defend the judgment against

the numerous assignments of error made by Shelter, we award $5,000.00 in

additional attorney’s fees for the work done on appeal.

Lastly, we find merit in Ms. Mason’s assignment of error that the trial court

erred in failing to award expert witness fees in this case. We note the judgment in

this case broadly reflected that “defendant, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company,

shall pay all court costs.” However, by a “rule nisi pertaining to litigation and

court costs,” Ms. Mason sought a hearing for the assessment of expert witness fees

pursuant to La.R.S. 13:3666 and various, particularized litigation expenses

pursuant to La.R.S. 13:4533. The trial court denied that motion, which Ms. Mason

again raises by her motion to remand.

Ms. Mason is seeking the deposition costs and expert witness fees under the

provisions of La.Code Civ.P. art 1920, which provides that “Unless the judgment

provides otherwise, costs shall be paid by the party cast, and may be taxed by a

rule to show cause.” Ms. Mason cites La.R.S. 13:3666 and La.R.S. 13:4533 as

proof that the costs requested are authorized by statute. The law is clear that expert

witness fees for testifying at trial and for time spent preparing for trial are

recoverable. The trial court specifically stated there were no expert witness fees in

this matter, though it would have awarded same if applicable. This is clearly error,

as Ms. Mason called expert witnesses Paul Doherty and Raul Viera to testify

during the trial. Moreover, David Prejean, who was deposed as an expert, had his

deposition introduced in lieu of live testimony by agreement of the parties. Ms.

Mason requested expert costs of $2,500.00 each for experts Paul Doherty and Raul

Viera, and $1,500.00 in expert costs for David Prejean. Finding these costs to be

reasonable, supported by the record, and recoverable under the law, we render

these awards to Ms. Mason. We find no need to remand this matter to the trial

court, and deny the Motion to Remand.

24

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the portion of the judgment denying Plaintiff,

Alfrieda Onezime Mason’s request for expert witness fees is reversed. We hereby

award Plaintiff expert witness costs of $2,500.00 each for Paul Doherty and Raul

Viera, and $1,500.00 in expert witness costs for David Prejean. Plaintiff is also

awarded $5,000 in additional attorney fees for the work necessitated in defending

Shelter’s appeal. The Motion for Remand is denied. In all other respects, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED;
MOTION TO REMAND DENIED.

25

NUMBER 16-135

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ALFRIEDA ONEZIME MASON

VERSUS

SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

AMY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join in the greater part of the majority opinion, including those aspects

pertaining to insurance coverage and the quantum of damages, penalties, and

attorney fees for work performed at the trial level. I further join in the denial of the

motion to remand.

However, I respectfully dissent from the award, on appeal, of expert witness

fees. While certain witnesses were qualified as experts, each largely offered fact

testimony. To the extent opinion testimony was provided, it did not address the

central issues at trial, which pertained to questions of coverage and contract

interpretation. Notably, the trial court discounted the importance of any such

testimony at the time of ruling, remarking that: “[u]sually we assess depositions

and so forth towards court costs, and expert witness fees, or anything like that. I

don’t think we had any in this case.” Additionally, I find that the plaintiff failed to

substantiate those costs in the record. She rather only suggests the figures to be

awarded in her brief to this court. Accordingly, I would leave the trial court’s

denial of those costs undisturbed.

Neither do I join in the award of attorney fees for work performed on appeal.

Certainly, jurisprudence indicates that “[a]n increase in attorney’s fees is awarded

on appeal when the defendant appeals, obtains no relief, and the appeal has

necessitated more work on the part of the plaintiff’s attorney, provided that the

plaintiff requests such an increase.” Shailow v. Gulf Coast Soc. Serv., 15-91, pp.

13-14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/10/15), 166 So.3d 1239, 1249 (quoting McKelvey v. City

of DeQuincy, 07-604, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/14/07), 970 So.2d 682, 690),

writ denied, 15-1336 (La. 10/9/15), 178 So.3d 1002, writ denied, 15-1355 (La.

10/9/15), 178 So.3d 1003. In this case, however, the plaintiff has not requested an

award of attorney fees for work performed in defense of Shelter’s appeal.

Although the plaintiff filed her own appeal, she sought only an increase of attorney

fees for work performed at the trial level. She makes no separate request—either

in her appellee’s reply to Shelter’s appeal or in her own appellant’s brief—for

work performed in defense of Shelter’s appeal. Absent that request, Shelter has

not had an opportunity to respond to a distinct request for appellate attorney fees.

For these reasons, I would affirm trial court’s ruling in full.

2