Prest v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
Prest v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 125 So. 3d 1079 (La. 2012).
Cited by
- Pablo Danilo Gonzalez Versus Destiny Wricks and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- Bayou Automotive Group, LLC d/b/a Bayou Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram and Bayou State Automotive … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
- c/w 2022-cc-00539 c/w 2022-cc-00730 La. 2023
- James Cunningham v. the City of New Orleans & the New Orleans Police Department La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
- Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, Llc v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation La. 2022
- Diane McKernan v. ABC Insurance Company, AIG Property Casualty Company, Brad Bourg, Bourg Insurance … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
- Upscale Fashions, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London 254 So. 3d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- State v. Draughter 130 So. 3d 855 La. 2013
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT v. Wagner 38 So. 3d 240
- Huddleston v. Bossier Bank and Trust Co. 475 So. 2d 1082
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Meyers 385 So. 2d 245
Opinion text
VICTORY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. hi concur in the portion of the majority opinion holding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding general damages in this ease. However, I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion awarding special damages for loss of use of the insurance proceeds and attorney fees. Under La. C.C.P. art. 861, items of special damages must be specifically pled; here they were not. Further, attorney fees may not be awarded in the absence of a statutory or contractual basis. State, Dept. of Transp. & Development v. Wagner, 10-0050 (La.5/28/10), 38 So.3d 240 ; Huddleston v. Bossier Bank & Trust, 475 So.2d 1082, 1085 (La.1985); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Meyers, 385 So.2d 245 (La.1980). There was no statutory or contractual basis for an award of attorney fees in this case. Finally, loss of use of the insurance proceeds and the need to expend attorney fees to file suit for the proceeds was not the fault of Kennedy, Lewis, Ren-ton & Associates, Inc. (“KLR”), but was instead the fault of Citizens for failure to pay the proceeds. KLR sent follow-up requests on November 7, 2005, January 6, 2006, March 10, 2006, and May 8, 2006 regarding the policy coverage increase requested in August, 2005. At the time Citizens denied coverage for the increased limits on May 6, 2006, KLR had already provided them with all of KLR’s documentation regarding the increased coverage [¿request. In spite of this documentation, Citizens still took the position that it did not become aware of the request until November 18, 2005. Thus, the three-year delay in paying the claim was the fault of Citizens, not KLR. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.