Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/162737822/NY-Life-Insurance-Company-Done
Timestamp: 2018-11-17 23:58:27
Document Index: 696673945

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 1915', 'art. 1915', 'art. 1915', 'art. 1953', 'art. 2000', 'art.2', 'art.3', 'art. 1915', 'art. 1915', 'Art. 11', 'art. 780', '§ 1', 'Art. 832', 'art. 3', '§ 1', 'art.1915', '§ 14', '§ 3', 'art. 5', 'art.9', 'art. 1915', 'art.000', 'sui generis', 'sui generis']

NY Life Insurance Company_Done | Judgment (Law) | Summary Judgment
25 Dumlao vs Quality Plastic Products
Paranormality Why We See What Isn’t There.pdf
11 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 3d SERIES
Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, BILLY HOWARD EZELL, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges. EZELL, Judge. For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Roland Brothers v. Direct General Insurance Company of Louisiana, et al., 08–1455, (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/09), 11 So.3d 1154, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as amended. Costs of these proceedings are assessed to Brady Crouch and Direct General Insurance Company of Louisiana. AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
(1) judgment granting life insurance agent’s exception of peremption was a final judgment subject to immediate appeal, for purposes of determining whether the delay on the judgment had run; (2) judgment dismissing liability insurer for insurance agent was a final judgment subject to immediate appeal; (3) life insurance agent did not owe a duty to investor to disclose actual value of policies that were assigned to investor to guarantee investment in the event CEO died, for purposes of investor’s vicarious liability fraud claim against life insurance company; (4) agent did not misrepresent to investor that life insurance policies assigned to investor could be stacked, as required in order for investor to maintain a vicarious liability fraud claim against life insurance company; (5) liability insurer for corporation’s officers and directors was not liable for CEO’s alleged fraud or negligent misrepresentations; and (6) directors did not act in a grossly negligent manner by failing to supervise CEO when he allegedly misrepresented value of insurance policies assigned to investor. Affirmed.
2008-932 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/20/09) Faye O. JEANSONNE v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. No. 08–932. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. May 20, 2009. Background: Investor brought fraud, negligence and vicarious liability action against estate of corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO), corporation’s directors, life insurance company, liability insurer, and life insurance agent’s errors and admissions (E & O) insurer. The Fifteenth Judicial District Court Parish of Lafayette, No.2001-4587 Division E, Herman C. Clause, District Judge, granted defendants summary judgment, and investor appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Thibodeaux, C.J., held that:
1. Appeal and Error O79(2), 366 Judgment granting life insurance agent’s exception of peremption on investor’s negligent misrepresentation claim against agent was a final judgment subject to immediate appeal, for purposes of determining whether the delay on the judgment had run, though trial court did not designate or certify such judgment as final, in fraud, negligence and vicarious liability action arising out of life insurance policies
JEANSONNE v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
Cite as 11 So.3d 1160 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2009)
issued on life of deceased chief executive officer (CEO) that investor brought against CEO’s estate, insurance agent, corporation’s directors and various insurance companies, as life insurance agent was completely dismissed from the action. LSA–C.C.P. art. 1915. 2. Appeal and Error O79(2), 366 A judgment that dismisses a party from a suit without adjudicating all of the issues in a case is a partial final judgment subject to an immediate appeal without the need of the trial court’s certification as such. LSA–C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(1). 3. Appeal and Error O79(2) Judgment granting life insurance agent’s exception of peremption on investor’s negligent misrepresentation claim against agent could not be held for appeal until the final judgment determining the merits for all the parties was issued, in fraud, negligence and vicarious liability action arising out of life insurance policies issued on life of deceased chief executive officer (CEO) that investor brought against CEO’s estate, insurance agent, corporation’s directors and various insurance companies; statutes required parties to obtain an order to appeal within the delay period allowed, and investor did not obtain an order to appeal the judgment for life insurance agent. LSA–C.C.P. arts. 2087, 2121. 4. Appeal and Error O79(2), 366 Judgment dismissing liability insurer for life insurance agent was a final judgment subject to immediate appeal, for purposes of determining whether the delay on the judgment had run, though the trial court did not designate or certify the judgment as final, in fraud, negligence and vicarious liability action arising out of life insurance policies issued on life of deceased chief executive officer (CEO) that investor brought against CEO’s estate, in-
surance agent, corporation’s directors and various insurance companies, as the agent’s liability insurer was completely dismissed from the action. LSA–C.C.P. art. 1915. 5. Insurance O1671 Life insurance agent for corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO), when agent prepared and obtained assignments of life insurance policies on CEO’s life, did not owe a duty to investor, which alleged that it desired the assignments to guarantee that it would be able to double its investment it was making in corporation’s shares in the event CEO died, to either disclose to investor the actual value of the policies assigned to investor or to exercise due care to ensure that the assignments provided the amount of coverage investor desired, as required in order for investor to maintain a vicarious liability claim after CEO died against life insurance company, as agent’s employer, for agent’s fraud or negligence; agent’s client was the CEO rather than investor, and agent had no duty to discover secret or unknown statements that his insured might or might not have made regarding the amount of existing coverage. LSA–C.C. art. 1953. 6. Insurance O1672 Life insurance agent for corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO) did not misrepresent to investor, who purchased $2,000,000 in corporation’s stock, that life insurance coverages and assignments could be stacked in order to guarantee to investor that it would be able to double its investment in the event CEO died, as required in order for investor to maintain after CEO died a vicarious liability claim against life insurance company, as agent’s employer for agent’s fraud or negligent misrepresentation; the two initial assignments to investor were intended to be temporary bridges for investor until inves-
there must exist a duty to speak or to disclose information. and directors had not filed for bankruptcy.000 on final key man policy once policy was issued. Insurance O3542 Investor. that were intended to guarantee the investment if CEO died.000. were not insolvent. and any negligent misrepresentations made by CEO regarding his personal life insurance policies were made in his personal capacity.C. and were not deceased. alleging that corporation’s directors acted in a grossly negligent manner by failing to supervise chief executive officer (CEO) when CEO allegedly misrepresented the value of life insurance policies assigned to investor intended to guarantee the investment if CEO died.S. could not maintain a direct action against insurer which had issued liability policy covering corporation’s directors and officers.000. Corporations O310(2) Insurance O2379 Directors of corporation did not act in a grossly negligent manner by failing to supervise corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO) when CEO allegedly misrepresented the value of life insurance policies assigned to investor. Insurance O2379 Liability insurer for corporation’s directors and officers was not liable for alleged negligent misrepresentations committed by corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO). and agent was not liable for investor’s own missteps or misunderstandings. 10. art. Fraud O17 To find fraud from silence or suppression of the truth. LSA–R.000. when he allegedly represented to investor which was purchasing $2.000 rather than $850.000 of corporation’s shares that three life insurance policies assigned to investor in order to guarantee the investment in the event CEO died were worth $2. 7. and representations made by CEO were made in his personal capacity rather than in his capacity as an officer. 8.000. one of the directors also invested in corporation and received the same assignment as investor in an amount reflecting his smaller investment. or for failing to peruse documents resulting from the negotiations that led to the investment. 3d SERIES tor was assigned $2. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER.000. investor was represented by an attorney and an accountant when the investment was being negotiated.000 worth of corporation’s shares. as the policy contained a fraud exclusion. Insurance O1671 A tortfeasor’s insurance agent owes no duty to the tort victim to secure a certain amount of insurance coverage. . 12:91.000 rather than $850.000. where investor did not serve the directors. 11. LSA– C. 1953. Insurance O2278(3) Liability insurer for corporation’s directors and officers was not liable for alleged fraud committed by corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO). agent never represented to investor that the first two assignments would be stacked with third assignment. who was purchasing $2.1162 La. as required in order for investor to maintain an action based on directors’ gross negligence against insurer which had issued a liability policy for directors. as the policy only covered wrongful acts committed by officers in their capacity as such. 12.000 of corporation’s shares that three life insurance policies that CEO owned on his life and were assigned to investor in order to guarantee the investment in the event CEO died were worth $2.000. 9. when he allegedly represented to investor which was purchasing $2.000.
Salley. LA.App. for Defendant/Appellee–Nutmeg Insurance Company. LA. Andr´ e F.JEANSONNE v. L. Ted Warren Hoyt. 3 Cir. as the employer of Langley. Christopher B. Jeansonne. Dixie further brought claims against Nutmeg Insurance Company (Nutmeg). Corporations O78 Stock purchase agreement executed by investor who purchased $2. (Dixie). 1163 LSA–R. LA. Lamont P. Broussard. APLC. Dixie brought claims of vicarious liability against New York Life Insurance Company (New York Life). Lafayette.3d 1160 (La. Michael J. S 1Appellant investor. Bailey. LLP. Pelleteri. asserted fraud claims against the estate of David Jeansonne. LA. Gordon. Dixie also brought claims of negligence against two directors of OMNI. Beh. Force.C. LA..S. LSA–R. Farley & Pelleteri.L. Duplantis & Egan.L. Maria Najwa Rabieh. David P. James M.C. and JAMES T. Masur. Cite as 11 So. Joshua S. LSA–C. Juneau.. Andrea A. Reardon Stanford. for Defendant/Appellee–Edward D. LA. Maura Z. 12. includ- Samuel E. Peter L. Hoyt & Stanford. the deceased chief executive officer (CEO) of OMNI Energy Services Corporation (OMNI). Toce. Judges. LLC. D. Edward D. 22:655(B)(1). as the liability (D & O) insurer of the directors and officers of OMNI. for Defendant/Appellee–OMNI Energy Services Corp. for Defendant/Appellee–Succession of David Jeansonne. Sue Nations Juneau David. Lafayette. New Orleans. ‘‘Denny’’ Langley. Langley. LA. as Langley’s errors and omissions (E & O) insurer. Voorhies & Labbe.L. and agreement contained an integration clause stating it constituted the entire agreement with investor. Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX. Hilbert. P. McCollam. New Orleans. Griffin. John Walter Hutchinson. Lafayette.P. where the stock purchase agreement did not memorialize the assignment of the personal life insurance policies or the extra assurances alleged given investor by CEO. Chief Judge. art. and against Jeansonne’s life insurance agent. New Orleans.. L. L. for Defen- . LA. Lafayette. CO.C. Garner. for Plaintiff/Appellee–Faye O. Krebs. for Defendant/Appellee–Zurich American Insurance Company. Salley. THIBODEAUX. 2009) La.C. Domingue. Chief Judge. Dixie Chris Omni.C. who was dismissed from the suit in 2005.L. 12:91. for Defendant/Appellant–Dixie Chris Omni. Sher Garner Cahill Richter Klein & Hilbert.000 in corporation’s stock protected directors from claim by investor that they negligently failed to supervise corporation’s chief executive officer (CEO) when CEO made false representations regarding the value of assignments of personal life insurance policies that were intended to guarantee the investment if CEO died. 13.C.92. Lafayette. BILLY HOWARD EZELL.L. Thomas M.L. dant/Appellee–New York Life Insurance Company. The directors were dismissed as the result of a settlement. Hite & Mercer. Zurich was dismissed from this suit in 2006. LA. GENOVESE. L. NEW YORK LIFE INS. 1201. LLC.S. and brought claims against Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich). for Defendant/Appellant–Dixie Chris Omni. Arata.000. Jr. Cole J. Mittleider.
The life insurance policies on Jeansonne were written by New York Life through its agent. hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Jeansonne policies. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. and we affirm the 2008 judgment of the trial court dismissing Dixie’s suit. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the two remaining defendants. Dixie’s appellate brief included argument seeking to appeal the 2005 judgment dismissing Langley and the 2006 judgment dismissing Langley’s E & O insurer.000. ‘‘Denny’’ Langley.000. As more fully set forth below. The current and dismissed defendants filed motions to dismiss and motions to strike the attempted appeals of the 2005 and 2006 judgments. after negotiating the prior day and for approximately fifteen hours on the 31st. He had raised the stock to $27. and (4) whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Nutmeg on the issue of the Integration Clause in the Stock Purchase Agreement. we grant the motions to strike from Dixie’s appellate brief all argument regarding the 2005 and 2006 judgments. 2000. S 2I. David Jeansonne’s former wife. and the two dismissed OMNI directors. Jeansonne was returning to OMNI as its chief executive officer with a specific plan to increase the value of the company’s stock. (3) whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Nutmeg on the issue of duty. Nutmeg and New York Life. Accordingly.00 per share (approximately $. At the time of the negotiations.1164 La. II. (2) whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to New York Life. investing $2.000. At Jeansonne’s request. Zurich. 2000. His abilities in this area made him the key figure in the negotiations.’’ having a total principle value of approximately $850.63 per share) and was on the verge of being delisted by the regulating authority.00 in OMNI stock. The second assignment was based upon a new ‘‘key man’’ policy being applied for by OMNI through Langley at the time of the negotiations. and briefly attended some of the meetings on October 31. However. 3d SERIES ing the deceased CEO. Dixie was to receive certain assignments of life insurance on Jeansonne to guarantee Dixie’s investment in the event that anything should happen to Jeansonne before he S 3was able to increase the value of the stock. Dixie timely appealed the 2008 judgment dismissing Nutmeg and New York Life. Edward D. OMNI stock was valued at less than $1.00. Langley met with his client. one of which covered three pre-existing personal policies of Jeansonne’s. Jeansonne. ISSUES We shall decide: (1) whether the appellate issues regarding the 2005 and 2006 judgments dismissing Langley and Zurich should be stricken from the appellant/Dixie’s brief. Jeansonne. Dixie entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with OMNI. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Dixie is a one-member limited liability company set up by Andr´ e Toce for the specific purpose of purchasing and holding stock in OMNI.00 per share in the past. and an order of appeal was issued as to that judgment. The beneficiary on these three Jeansonne policies was Faye Jeansonne. dismissing Dixie’s suit in its entirety. Late in the evening on October 31. . Langley delivered two assignments to Jeansonne.
the parties filed numerous reconventional demands.000. S 5In the meantime. 2000. CO.000. in February 2001. Therefore.000.1 also being drafted on the 31st. In addition to Dixie’s investment of $2. seven sonne. as an assignee without possession. 3 Cir. it was later determined that this amount exceeded new coverage amounts allowed by New York Life under the circumstances. apparently on the previous day.200. over the proceeds of this life insurance. DeHart and Anjier were working on various elements of the Stock Purchase Agreement in OMNI’s offices throughout the building. . Dixie had no valid claim to the funds.00 each. 3152 and 3158. 2.000. was reportedly on the phone at many points during the negotiations. had expected and asked for a release from Dixie of the ‘‘temporary’’ assignment of the three smaller Jeansonne policies when the larger key man policy was issued and delivered to OMNI. stating that Jeansonne had failed to effect valid collateral assignments in exchange other investors.000 shares of OMNI stock with options to purchase over a million additional shares. Also present at various times during the meeting was Burt Zaunbrecher.00 was subsequently filed and accepted by New York Life. Andr´ e Toce.00. accepting twenty percent of the proceeds of the three policies for Dixie’s portion. an investor and officer of OMNI. Jeansonne died in a plane crash. which was accomplished by Jeansonne through Dixie.00 and $250. and third-party demands.000. Faye Jeansonne filed suit against New York Life and Dixie.00.Civ.000. The Stock Purchase Agreement reflected that for $2. 1165 The beneficiary on this policy was to be OMNI. During the fifteen hours of negotiation on October 31.000. and the other investors. and Dixie’s attorney. John Anjier. Dixie’s pleadings asserted claims of negligent misrepresentation and other tortious acts and omissions against the estate of David Jeansonne. New York Life deposited the proceeds of the disputed life insurance policies. The OMNI policy was to fund the stock ‘‘put option’’ in the Stock Purchase Agreement. The amount needed by OMNI was $5. The life insurance application that was written on that date was for $15. A new application for $7. this policy is referred to as the ‘‘OMNI’’ or ‘‘key man’’ policy. an attorney himself. into the registry of the court. approximately $924. asserting that the proceeds on the three Jeansonne policies in her possession. Over the next few years. a requirement under La. and the coverage was written and delivered.2 A few months later. NEW YORK LIFE INS. Cite as 11 So.JEANSONNE v. Faye Jeansonne argued. David Jeansonne. Dixie purchased 3.000.000. 2009) La. and Jeansonne at times was actually being examined S 4by medical personnel who had been called to OMNI to give the 40–year–old Jeansonne a physical examination in furtherance of obtaining the new key man coverage. However.App. cross-claims.00. Faye Jeansonne filed a motion for summary judgment.3d 1160 (La. were owed to her because Dixie never took delivery of the policies. Toce. the holder and beneficiary of the three personal Jeansonne policies. and the funds in the registry of the court.000. and were in and out of the room during discussions between Toce and Jeansonne. agreed to invest between $100.000. and allowing Faye Jeansonne to collect eighty percent of the funds in the registry of the court. Michael DeHart. 2000.Code arts. its certified public accountant and financial advisor. She further argued that her former husband.00.000. Dixie was represented by its owner. Dixie ultimately settled with Faye Jeansonne.500. A dispute arose between Dixie and Faye Jean1.00 on October 31.
and an issue revolving around the Integration Clause in the Stock Purchase Agreement. and Nutmeg filed three motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment.00. answers to interrogatories. approximately $1. Rucks. The Jeansonne assignment also does not show. Dixie asserted that Langley’s negligent misrepresentations amounted to malfeasance and that Langley had practiced a ‘‘deceit upon Dixie. The only other remaining defendant. and Zurich was dismissed in August of 2006.00 and that Dixie should have received $2. separating the issues of duty. and thirdparty demand. reconventional demand. the trial court granted all motions for summary judgment. as a defendant.000.000.00. and New York Life seek to have us dismiss or strike Dixie’s attempted appeals of the 2005 and 2006 judgments. damages.’’ Langley filed an exception of peremption. New York Life filed one comprehensive motion for summary judgment. respectively.00 from those policies through settlement with Faye Jeansonne. S 6In 2005. IV and John H. Jeansonne. LAW AND DISCUSSION Standard of Review A motion for summary judgment will be granted ‘‘if the pleadings. together with the affidavits. Zurich. but does not reflect the dollar amounts of the policies. Dixie alleges that it was given assurances by Jeansonne and was led to believe by Jeansonne that the three personal policies listed on the first collateral assignment had a value of $2. was New York Life.000. The collateral assignment itself lists the three policies by policy number.000. Dixie named OMNI’s D & O liability carrier. depositions.00 upon the death of Jeansonne. Because Dixie did ultimately receive just under $200.000. Dixie appealed the February 2008 judgment dismissing Nutmeg and New York Life. and both Nutmeg and New York Life were dismissed with prejudice. it argued for reversal of not only the February 2008 judgment. Dixie had also amended to add two directors of OMNI who were not present at the October 2000 meeting.000.000. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER.000.800. as a defendant. Zurich. Denny Langley. which was granted. Following Dixie’s original answer. Rucks. against whom Dixie asserted claims of vicarious liability for the fraudulent and intentional or negligent misrepresentations of its agent. Other amended pleadings named Langley’s insurer. if any. Dixie complained that New York Life agent Langley had aided and abetted Jeansonne in misleading Dixie during the 2000 negotiations regarding the value of the collateral assignments. 3d SERIES for Dixie’s $2. In Dixie’s appellate brief. Zurich’s motion for summary judgment was granted. In its first supplemental pleading in 2002. asserting Nutmeg’s liability for the acts and omissions of Jeansonne. and Untereker. . but Dixie did not name Langley as a third-party defendant until February 2005. any indication of the value of the assignment. In February 2008. on its face. Dixie subsequently settled with the two directors without ever having effected service upon them. In Dixie’s last amended pleading in April 2007. S 7III.000. and admissions on file. cross-claim. Langley. Untereker. besides Nutmeg. Nutmeg. Zurich. but also the 2005 and 2006 judgments dismissing Langley and his liability insurer. Dixie’s claim is for the difference between the amount received and the $2.00 that it expected to receive.1166 La.000. Dixie filed seven (7) amended pleadings over a five-year period. William W. and Langley was dismissed in August 2005. asserting claims against them for negligent supervision of OMNI’s CEO.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. Sher v. art.P. 06–2843. C.1915 (emphasis added).. [1] The August 2005 judgment dismissing Langley after granting his exception of peremption is a final. 988 So. subject to an immediate appeal. art.2d 127. Gerry Lane Enter. La. 2005 Langley Judgment and 2006 Zurich Judgment Dixie seeks to appeal the August 2005 judgment dismissing Langley and the August 2006 judgment dismissing Langley’s liability insurer. issues. art.Code Civ.P. 07–2441. 2009) La. immediately appealable judgment because. art.P. third party claim. 192 (quoting Huggins v. under .2d 186. therefore.P. p. CO. Code art.3d 1160 (La. art. whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. p. Thus.5/22/07).. the judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. defendants. 1915(A)(1) but were not designated as final pursuant to La. third party defendants.P. 128). 5 (La. 06–2816. demands. when the court: (1) Dismisses the suit as to less than all of the parties. Lafayette Ins. If an appeal is taken from any judgment rendered under the provisions of this Article.P. Cite as 11 So. 2 (La. or intervenors. 1915(A) does not have to be designated as such.Civ. A final judgment may be rendered and signed by the court. or intervention. Zurich.’’ Id. Dixie argues that the Langley and Zurich judgments were partial final judgments under La. the trial court shall retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining issues in the case.. (1) When a court renders a partial judgment or partial summary judgment or sustains an exception in part. for which delays have run on both judgments.’’ La.JEANSONNE v. ‘‘This court reviews a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo.Code Civ. cross-claim. Partial final judgment.. 966(B). 3 Cir. reconventional demand. partial exception. Any such order or decision issued 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. Co. as to one or more but less than all of the claims. One clear problem in Dixie’s argument is that a final judgment S 8under La. 1167 show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. or may not adjudicate all of the issues in the case. 957 So. partial summary judgment A.Code Civ.Code Civ.4/8/08). TTTT B. whether in an original demand. the reviewing court asks the same questions as does the trial court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.1915. art. 1915(A) and. any order or decision which adjudicates fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties.Code Civ. (2) In the absence of such a determination and designation. i. In its Statement of Jurisdiction. Thus. The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: La. even though it may not grant the successful party or parties all of the relief prayed for. third party plaintiffs. or theories.App.Code Civ. partial judgment. shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and shall not constitute a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal. The defendants argue that both judgments were final judgments under La. these judgments can be appealed along with the final judgment dismissing Nutmeg and New York Life.e. Inc. 1915(B)(1).
A partial final judgment under Article 1915(B) is appealable only if so designated by the court. applies to the resolution of issues.Code Civ. However. the judgment is final under Article 1915(A)(1). if the court does not designate otherwise. La. a judgment is interlocutory and not immediately appealable unless the trial court designates it as final. Inc. It adjudicated all claims against Langley. This fits squarely under 1915(A)(1) as an immediately appealable final judgment as to Langley. in a personal injury action brought against a sugar mill.’’ Generally speaking. governing interlocutory judgments. applies to the dismissal of parties. art. which is ‘‘less than all of the parties. See Banks v. Under Article 1915(B). Cavalier seems to be most factually analogous to the present case. A final judgment under Article 1915(A) is appealable without being so designated. immediately appealable. A partial summary judgment under Article 966(E) is covered under Article 1915(B). third party plaintiffs. while Article 1915(B)(1).2d 715. There. 4/30/03). the driver of a tractor-trailer. This means that when one party gets only part of the relief requested. the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the sugar mill defendant from the suit with prejudice. or intervenors. the appellate court lacked jurisdiction with regard to any issues concerning the propriety of that judgment.1998). 1 Cir. which discusses a partial exception as being interlocutory. v.1911.. 9/17/04). art. 1915(A)(1).P. Langley’s full dismissal on the granting of his exception of peremption was not a partial exception that adjudicated ‘‘fewer than all claims’’ against him. [2] A judgment that dismisses a party from a suit without adjudicating all of the issues in a case is a partial final judgment subject to an immediate appeal without the need of the trial court’s certification as such. Dixie argues that the legislature did not remove the word ‘‘parties’’ from Article 1915(B)(2). except for a partial summary judgment under Article 966(E). We interpret (B)(2) in conjunction with (B)(1). the Langley judgment is a non-designated interlocutory judgment reviewable on appeal with the final judgment. State Farm [sic]. the judgment is interlocutory. therefore.2d 38.C.P. to follow Dixie’s interpretation of the Langley judgment as an interlocutory judgment under 1915(B)(2) would negate 1915(A)(1).P. 867 So.2d 523 ([La. Associated Indemnity Corp. and it did not require the court’s designation or certification of the judgment as final. Art. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 708 So. and he was dismissed as a defendant from the S 10suit. 02–0716 (La.. More specifically. Article 1915(A)(1). The first circuit determined that the judgment was a partial final judgment subject to immediate appeal.App. it dismisses the suit as to one party. 03–2197 (La. governing final judgments. 897 So. 3d SERIES S 9La. such that the same party is not dismissed from the suit. Cavalier v. 1915(A)(1). Because no timely appeal was taken from the judgment. The Motorola court provided the following extensive analysis of legislative intent: . where the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.Code Civ. The Cavalier court cited its earlier decision in Motorola. Inc. See C. and there is no requirement to have it designated as final. Rivere’s Trucking. third party defendants. and. sitting en banc. the 1999 ‘‘Comment’’ to Article 1915 states as follows: The language in 1915(B)(1) is amended to eliminate confusion with Article 1915(A) by the elimination of ‘‘parties’’ from (B)(1).App. but if one party is completely dismissed from a suit. held that summary judgment granted to one insurer was a partial final judgment. defendants.App.] 2 Cir.1168 La. and the owner of the tractor-trailer. 1 Cir.
1263. Thus. 2009) La. The minutes of the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure relating to House Bill No. art. 780 are particularly revealing: Professor [Howard W. art. as amended by Acts 1999. are appealable only if designated by the court. 966(E) from article 1915(A)(3).1/19/00). 1915. and (2) a partial judgment under C. Prior to that effective date. CO. arts.P.1915(B). Comment 1999. became effective as to all actions filed on or after January 1. Among the extensive recommendations made were the elimination of the word ‘‘parties’’ from La. the search for the legislature’s intent.’’ La. other than a partial summary judgment. C.App. which. and.C. NEW YORK LIFE INS. Professor L’Enfant continued with the changes to Article 1915 which would clarify the confusion that presently exists. 24:204(A)(1). 02–2951 (La. of DeRidder v. Article 1915(A) specifies those partial final judgments that are appealable and article 1915(B) describes other partial judgments which may or may not be final appealable judgments. Bridges v.’’ La. it would seem that a judgment adjudicating all claims relating to ‘‘one or more but less than all of the TTT parties’’ would henceforth be governed by article 1915(A).2/14/03). was enacted as Acts 1999.C. p. 3 (La.App. Under the general rules of statutory construction where such ambiguity exists.JEANSONNE v. 1169 The divergent interpretations of the necessity of certification of partial judgments alone demonstrate the ambiguity of article 1915’s language. 1st Cir. therefore. The present version of La.P. Arti- . p. See also La. 1263. He stated that the problem with the way Article 1915(B) is written is an overlap with respect to Article 1915(A).R. or parties. is appealable without more.2d 121].C.P.F. § 1. Department of Revenue & Taxation. which would clarify the appealability of final judgments and partial final judgments and specify that (1) a partial judgment pursuant to C. 2000. article 1915(B)(1) provided that its certification requirement applied to any partial judgment ‘‘as to one or more but less than all of the claims. 2. Art. 832 So. 314. 99–2215. C. as amended.S. theories. C.’’ The official Comment relating to the 1999 amendments states that the purpose of the change was ‘‘to eliminate confusion with Article 1915(A) by the elimination of ‘parties’ from (B)(1).C. Intent expressed at the appropriate legislative committee meetings is an aid to the courts in determining the true legislative intent and purpose behind the law. 5 (La.2d 312. pursuant to its statutory duty ‘‘[t]o consider needed improvements in both substantive and adjective law and to make recommendations concerning the same to the legislature. 765 So. 10. 836 So. No. 1915(B)(1) and exclusion of summary judgments rendered pursuant to La.C. State.W.9/27/02). issues. Cite as 11 So.C.P. art. 3 Cir. See Cole–Miers Post 3619 S 11V.3d 1160 (La. No. That the above-described result is what the legislature intended is confirmed by examination of the pertinent legislative history. § 1.P. demands. writ denied. 311[.P. C. was proposed by the Louisiana State Law Institute. 780. art.1915. C. and a partial summary S 12judgment. primarily. House Bill No. Art. depending on whether so designated by the trial court. courts begin their review with the premise that legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will.2d 307.1915(A). 01–2166. the interpretation of the law involves.C. Smith.] L’Enfant [of the Louisiana State University Law Center] TTT explained the changes to Article 1911.
However.3(1) (1999 ed. 930 So. See also Roger A. App. 3 Cir. Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure § 14. * * * Representative McMains [co-author of Bill No. this judgment was immediately appealable and did not need designation by the trial court to be rendered appealable. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER.18 (2002 ed. which was that whenever a judgment dismisses a party. it would appear that the prevailing rule in the Second and Fourth Circuits is in accord with this interpretation. In Strother v. Maraist and Harry T. a panel of this court discussed in detail the amendments to La. Lemmon.2d at 555. * * * Professor L’Enfant agreed with Representative McMains’ statement. 05–1094 (La. without reasons from the trial court stating why an appealable partial judgment should exist. Professor L’Enfant stated that the bill would strike ‘‘or parties’’ from (B)(1) and return the law as it was before the adoption of (B)(1). the fifth and the third circuits have rendered decisions consistent with the above interpretation. 917 So. since the 2003 publication of Motorola. C. choosing not to follow Motorola.). Louisiana Civil Appellate Procedure. Dixie asserts that this court continues to hold differently.) Commentators have expressed the view. Hence. At this time. a judgment that dismisses a party must designate whether it would be appealable under (A)(1) or it was not appealable under (B)(1).P. at 719–20 (footnotes omitted) (first alteration ours). 917 So. 3d SERIES cle 1915(A) provides that if a final judgment dismisses a party. but as to a partial summary judgment that dismissed an issue or cause of action. that the 1999 amendment to La. Therefore. 780 and committee chairman] explained that the net effect of the changes to Article 1915 would be that a partial final judgment would unquestionably exist whenever a party were [sic] dismissed.2d 551. Continental Casualty Co.. Id. 06–302 (La. when a court renders a partial judgment or a partial summary judgment as to one or more but less than all of the parties. art. that judgment is a partial final judgment and would be appealable.’’ 1 Frank L. the language of the bill is reinforced by the opinions of the courts of appeal that have been rendered so far.1170 La.. the court would be required to certify that it was indeed a partial final judgment. 1915 served ‘‘the purpose of making a judgment dismissing one or more but not all of the parties immediately appealable under Article 1915 A without the necessity of designation by the trial court as a final judgment under Article 1915 B. art.Code Civ. that the courts of appeal have taken very seriously the S 13language in Article 1915(B)(1) and have said that. Therefore. 11/16/05). rev’d on other grounds.6/2/06). the appeal courts are prepared to dismiss the appeal as inappropriate. it is an appealable judgment. 2002 pocket part).’’ Strother. (Our emphasis.1915 and found that where the ‘‘judgment on the jury’s verdict disposed of the entirety of the plaintiffs’ suit against these defendants. but Article 1915(B)(1) provides that. the third circuit’s decision is consis- .P. while the Third and Fifth Circuits have generally held that a judgment dismissing less than all the parties is controlled by article 1915(B)(1).C.2d 948. Stetter. § 3. then it is not a final judgment unless specified as such by the court. consistent with the foregoing expressions of the legislative purpose.
it was final and appealable without the necessity of designation.P. 1915(A and B). Dixie argues that Boutte v. where a judgment sustaining the defendant attorneys’ peremptory exception of no cause of action in an action against the attorneys.2d 164.2d 1045. 978 So. Cont’l Cas. 1915(A)(1).’’ The first circuit has made similar findings. 1/22/08). Id. and to designate [only] the amended judgment as appealable. 06–302 (La. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.2d 339. 03–228 (La. 857 So. 846 So. Inc.App.. the judgment is appealable pursuant to La. because as a judgment that dismissed a party it is final and appealable without the necessity for designation under Section (B).C. In Bell. 1 Cir. 5 Cir. In Bordelon.6/2/06). 08–387 (La.11/7/03). After conducting a de novo review. 11/4/05). writ denied.Code Civ. auto owner.App. Strother. arts. See. Since the judgment dismissed a party. Block v.C.App. La. art. 5/28/03). found that the judgment dismissing an injured motorist’s petition as to the driver.App. the trial court had titled the judgment ‘‘Final Judgment. their client. 1915(B)(1). even though the motorist’s claim for UM benefits was still pending in the trial court. 2009) La.P. but the supreme court went on to articulate that it was ‘‘apparent from the record that all of the parties believed the original judgment was a partial..4/18/08).’’ Id. a panel of this court agreed that the judgment was final and appealable but did not specifically address the fact that Article 1915(A)(1) required no designation. CO. 5 Cir. was a partial final judgment that was immediately appealable and did not require the trial court’s certification of the judgment as final for appeal where the judgment dismissed the attorneys from the litigation. 07–651 (La.P.App.’’ Strother v.1911. 930 So. art. non-final judgment which could be amended.P. C. (B).2d 993. 1915(B) because it did not expressly state that there was no just reason to delay the immediate appeal.P. 927 So.2d 948. Neither decision discusses the language in the original judgment or what the judgment adjudicated. 03–2074 (La. at 950.Code Civ. Bordelon v. 04–1893 (La. arts. 930 So. and another. a panel of this court found that the judgment constituted a final judgment because it dismissed all claims against one defendant but had no effect on the remaining claims against the other defendants. the facts in Strother were complicated by the fact that on the same day that S 14the defendants filed their appeal. However.3d 1160 (La. To bolster its argument that the third circuit has remained inconsistent with other circuits. See also La. 1915(A)(1). 950 So.1911.2d 350. they also filed a pleading to amend the judgment to incorporate oral agreements ‘‘entered into between the parties and the court. and even though the judgment was not designated as being immediately appealable.2d 497.Code Civ. Avondale Indus. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed our finding in Strother under 1915(A) for what appears to be factual reasons.2d at 948 (emphasis added)... art. NEW YORK LIFE INS.JEANSONNE v. Elliott & Davis. Co. 3 Cir. 2/7/07). Bernard. In Bell v. footnote 4 provides: ‘‘The trial court designated the judgment for appeal pursuant to La. writ denied. C. finding that the partial judgment was signed on ‘‘a part of’’ the principal demand against one set of defendants. However.2d 994. Fireman’s Fund County Mutual Insur- . American International Group.’’ The error argued on appeal was that the designation did not conform to La. rendering it a(B)(2) judgment that required designation. and liability insurer was a final and immediately S 15appealable judgment. 1171 tent with Motorola. Cassisa. 3 Cir. The fifth circuit in Riehm v. 06–1242 (La. 846 So. Cite as 11 So. 977 So.
contrary to Dixie’s assertion. Dixie only sought to add argument to its brief on the Langley and Zurich judgments. the trial court’s order granting Dixie’s appeal ‘‘upon considering the Notice of Devolutive Appeal ’’ could not grant an appeal not sought (emphasis added). 3 Cir. the decision does refer to ‘‘an unrestricted appeal’’ which allows the party to seek review of adverse interlocutory rulings when appealing the final judgment. writs denied. Dixie obtained an order to appeal the February 2008 judgment only. Dixie used a pair of commas to set off the phrase—‘‘. 1915(A).1172 La. The Bernal judgment was consistently referred to S 16as an interlocutory judgment. 06– 1484 (La. art.9/29/06). art. except that Zurich’s dismissal by summary judg- . ‘‘An appeal is taken by obtaining an order therefor. If Dixie’s argument were correct. This is borne out in the fact that Dixie did not add argument in its appellate brief on all ‘‘prior judgments. while that decision does not discuss the language in that appellant’s motion for an appeal. More specifically. 2008. supports its position. art. We disagree with Dixie that the language. 930 So. we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as to those judgments.App. which is not the case herein. the trial court had. Additionally. in Boutte. there would be no need for statutes setting forth delay periods at all. in this case. 2008 Final Judgment granting the Motions for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of New York Life Insurance and Nutmeg Insurance Company.Code Civ. However. and there is no evidence in the decision that she argued La.’’—indicating that this phrase is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. by marking out the paragraph inserted by her for that purpose. 2121 (emphasis ours). ‘‘in connection with the prior judgments.P. even if a judgment can be appealed immediately. 3d SERIES ance Co. and the statement of timeliness (sixty-seven days from judgment. 2008 judgment dismissing Nutmeg and New York Life.’’ though there were several.P. and this Notice of Appeal is timely per Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2087. These Mo- tions for Summary Judgment. within the delay allowed. 06–34 (La.’’ converts this limited motion into an all-encompassing. 2087). in an overt act. Additionally.2d 305. Moreover.Code Civ. Dixie’s April 7. The very next sentence. makes it even clearer that the only judgment Dixie appealed is the February 8.P. refused to designate the judgment dismissing Eva Bernal on summary judgment as a final judgment. 5/10/06). per La. or whether she asked for and obtained an order granting her an appeal of the earlier Bernal judgment. [3] Dixie further argues that. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. Without an order of appeal on the added judgments. grammatically speaking. the same reasoning applies. unrestricted appeal that includes all prior judgments. 06–1482.’’ La. it can also be held until the final judgment determining the merits for all parties. [4] Accordingly. from the court which rendered the judgment. LLC’s claims.2d 864. 2008 ‘‘Notice of Devolutive Appeal’’ states that Dixie intends to appeal the February 6. 937 So. again providing the S 17February 2008 date upon which the appealed judgment was noticed. The Clerk of Court mailed the Notice of Signing of Judgment on February 8. in connection with the prior judgments rendered by the court. resulted in the complete dismissal of Dixie Chris Omni. in connection with the prior judgments rendered by the court. With regard to the August 2006 judgment dismissing Langley’s liability insurer. Dixie did not obtain an order to appeal the 2005 Langley judgment. apparently even by Bernal.Code Civ.. Zurich.
was vicariously liable for the misrepresentations and fraudulent actions and omissions of its agent.000.Code Civ.00 policy that was never accepted or written by New York Life. Under the put option. a guarantee that would allow it to double its investment.000. the only appeal properly before us is the appeal of the February 8.00 became available to fund the ‘‘put option’’ in the Stock Purchase Langley on Jeansonne’s three personal policies was represented as having a value.00 in life insurance proceeds to guarantee Dixie’s investment in the event that Jeansonne died and Dixie was unable to. Dixie’s position is that the first collateral assignment prepared by 3. were represented to him as having a value of $2.00. when the amount proved to be above the insurer’s limit and was rejected by New York Life.000. 44673895. 3 Cir.00 when they actually had a total value of only $850. it was replaced with a valid assignment of a new $7.000. Cite as 11 So. 2008 judgment dismissing Nutmeg and New York Life.00 going into OMNI.000. standing alone.000. Jeansonne. and.3d 1160 (La. which Dixie concedes is not at issue. Rather.000. the second assignment on the $15.000. as represented by S 19Jeansonne. No.JEANSONNE v.000.000. it contends.00 OMNI key man policy. was valued at another $2.000. 46859506. $2.000. .00. written by Langley and New York Life. Therefore.000.000. The Dismissal of New York Life Dixie contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to New York Life. Based upon the foregoing. immediately increasing the value of OMNI stock. in Dixie’s case. therefore.P. the full proceeds of $7. with policy numbers 44654759.00.000. Dixie and the other investors chose to keep their stock in OMNI and release their assignments on the OMNI policy.500.000. collecting $4.000. as to the first assignment.000.00 ‘‘key man’’ insurance policy.000. told Langley that he needed assignments of life insurance proceeds sufficient to fund Dixie’s $2. the three personal policies on Jeansonne’s life.00 in guarantees that Dixie was led to expect in exchange for its $2.000.00.App. New York Life. Dixie further asserts that this assignment was ‘‘bogus’’ because there was no policy number listed to connect the assignment with the insurance guaranty. contends that both assignments prepared by Langley and given to Jeansonne were worthless at the time that they were signed because they did not provide the $4.000.000.00 insurance application is not at issue because. Dixie alleges that it was based not upon an existing policy. on the life of Jeansonne.3 Agreement. Dixie alleges that its status as the largest investor warranted more than a guarantee that it could recover its base investment of $2. NEW YORK LIFE INS.000. and Jeansonne promised. resulting in the policy proceeds of $7. or decided not to. CO. The second assignment based upon the $15.000. Langley.000. An assignment on the OMNI key man policy was to be extended to each and every investor in an amount consistent with each person’s investment. However.00. 1173 ment invokes the application of La.500. but upon an application for a $15. but proceeds to argue in any event.000. and 42927534. Dixie alleges that.000. 2009) La. Dixie wanted. of $2. As to the second assignment.000. surrender its stock back to OMNI.00 if Jeansonne died. art. 1915(A)(3) as well as 1915(A)(1). When Jeansonne died.000.00 investment. or ‘‘put’’ their stock back to OMNI for a return of their investments. Dixie and the other investors could have surrendered.000. after Jeansonne’s death. Dixie S 18alleges that OMNI’s deceased CEO.00 ‘‘put option’’ in the Stock Purchase Agreement in addition to immediate coverage of $2. as it was to fund the ‘‘put option’’ in the Stock Purchase Agreement. Dixie. Dixie’s assignments of error and arguments addressing the Langley and Zurich judgments are hereby ordered stricken from Dixie’s appellate brief.500.
000. apparently a reference back to the inappropriateness of the form used for the assignments. S 21More specifically. choosing inappropriate assignment forms.000. there is no material evidence to support Dixie’s claim regarding Jeansonne’s promises that coverages and assignments would be stacked to provide Dixie with $4. testified that other proof of indebtedness could be used and suggested that the Stock Purchase Agreement might supply proof of indebtedness. Civ. and by a $1. [6] ‘‘Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other. it was Jeansonne’s former spouse. that New York Life and Langley owed no duty to Dixie for any perceived negligence because their client was Jeansonne.00 on its investment in OMNI within the time frame promised by Jeansonne. the S 20New York Life representative. Moreover.00 investment was to be immediately covered by Jeansonne’s three personal policies. She further stated that the manner by which an assignment usually works is that the assignee gets his debt paid off. processing the application and assignments. that Dixie would not be able to prove damages at trial because it made approximately $4.00. leading Toce to believe the three personal policies were worth $2.000.1174 La.000.00 assignment on the final key man policy.1953. there could be no breach.000. and the balance would go to the owner of the policy. Dixie further alleges that the corporate designee for New York Life testified in her deposition that the first collateral assignment listing the three personal policies of Jeansonne was worthless because Jeansonne died before giving Dixie a separate sworn statement of indebtedness. aiding and abetting Jeansonne in the above fraudulent misrepresentations through: discussions with OMNI and Jeansonne regarding the assignments. In this case. Dixie asserts that Langley knew that there would never be any such debt of Jeansonne. Charmain Goodman. going back to 1986.00 in coverage to the satisfaction of Dixie was made by Langley on October 31. Fraud may also result from silence or inaction.700.000. We find these arguments persuasive. These assignments were to be replaced by one $2. and. The evidence further indicates that.00 risk binder on the new OMNI key man policy application for $15.00 in registry of court).Code art. [5] In response to Dixie’s appeal. valued at $850. New York Life asserts that there was no evidence of fraud by Langley.000.000. preparation of the OMNI application for the $15.000.’’ La.000. New York Life argues that all discovery had been done at the time of the judgment and that there were no genuine issues of mate- rial fact regarding Dixie’s inability to prevail on its allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against New York Life. filling out all documents in his own handwriting. that because there was no duty. our review of the record reveals that Langley testified to using the standard form for assignments used by New York Life for his entire career with them.000.000.000. delivering the assignments to Toce. when issued. and.00 policy.000. not Dixie. Hence. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. the evidence indicates that Dixie’s $2. However. the rec- . The record in this case indicates that a sincere attempt to immediately provide approximately $2. However.000.00. rather than stacking the two assignments. getting Jeansonne’s signature.00 upon the death of Jeansonne. 3d SERIES Dixie asserts that Langley participated extensively.00 ($924. both assignments were temporary bridges for Dixie. 2000.000.000.000.000. as beneficiary after Jeansonne died.
000.00.00 in coverage immediately while the $15. including Dixie’s $2. Langley told Jeansonne that he did not. while Faye was the beneficiary.000.000.000. the company would go on risk for $1.00. However. was temporary. Langley testified that once the physical examination was done on October 31st.000. for $850. that the new assignment would replace the old assignment. NEW YORK LIFE INS. Langley stated that this was fine with Toce.000. and possibly his attorney. and that Toce would get the $2.000.00 that he had belonged to the children’s trust.000.00 until the full coverage was written on the $15. covering the initial investments of all investors. Anjier).00.000.000. Langley talked with them about $2.000.000.00.500. as a result of the turn of events.000.000. In the conference room with Toce and two others (likely his financial advisor. which made it unavailable. Cite as 11 So.000.00 life insurance (key man) policy on Jeansonne.000.000. Deposition of Langley Langley testified that he went to Jeansonne’s office on the morning of October 31.000.00 binder on the new policy came to almost $2.00 S 23policy. Langley met with Toce for roughly fifteen minutes in the morning and fifteen minutes in the afternoon. though it did write a policy for $7.3d 1160 (La. because the $2.000. 3 Cir. and left in the mid-afternoon.000. DeHart. They did not discuss her signature on the assignment because. but Toce said that he did not want them.000.00. Langley testified that Jeansonne asked him in front of Toce whether he had enough insurance to cover Dixie’s $2. Medical personnel came to OMNI’s offices on October 31st to do a physical on the 40–year–old Jeansonne for that purpose.00 OMNI policy to the Baton Rouge office. Langley thought that the assignment was temporary.000.000.000. from the actions of Toce himself. Jeansonne said that the $850. 1175 ord materially supports the dismissal of New York Life.000. 2009) La. From there it was sent to Dallas.00 policy was being written. Langley testified that he did tell Jeansonne in front of Toce that the three policies that were S 22ultimately used for the first assignment totaled $850.00. CO.000. After Jeansonne’s death in the plane crash a few . During the day.00 assignment on the OMNI ‘‘key man’’ policy when it was written.00 investment. OMNI was applying for a $15. Langley testified that he left OMNI’s offices between 3:00 and 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon on the 31st and took the application for the $15. each investor received an assignment equal in value to his investment on that policy.000. He stated that he explained to Toce that the policies were Jeansonne’s personal policies and that they had cash accumulated value. 2000. New York Life would not write the $15.000.000.JEANSONNE v.000.App. and another family member would have to sign.00 and that Faye Jeansonne was the beneficiary on those. and he could have changed the beneficiary any time he chose. the policies belonged to David Jeansonne. According to Langley. on which OMNI would be the beneficiary. As to the process. He further testified that he told Toce that the second assignment was for $1. 2000.00 on the three personal policies was enough because that amount plus the $1.000.000. The purpose of the meeting was to write a new policy that would cover the investors’ return of their money should Jeansonne die. which was more than enough to fund the ‘‘put options’’ on the Stock Purchase Agreement. but once the OMNI policy was written. Langley indicated in his deposition that he understood that the first assignment of Jeansonne’s personal policies. Langley stated that he did not know of the other investors on October 31.
500.000. Toce admitted in his deposition that he had more than doubled his initial investment in OMNI stock. However.000. testified that he was aware that a nurse was present performing a physical on Jeansonne for the S 24application on the new policy that would be written to fund the put option in the Stock Purchase agreement.00 of coverage based upon the new policy application. .000. rather than stacking two assignments for $2. he brought a collateral assignment release form to Jeansonne for Dixie to release the assignment on Jeansonne’s three personal policies. OMNI stock was more valuable.00 investment.00 plus. the corporate representative for New York Life.00) and the intended assignment on the $1. Jeansonne told Langley to give the release to Burt Zaunbrecher.000. New York Life then paid OMNI the proceeds of that policy.00 policy.000. Dixie conceded that the second assignment on the $15. Dixie has no claims against New York Life.4 Nevertheless. by March 2004.00 from the OMNI policy. Because of the influx of $7.000. in the registry of the court.00 in proceeds on OMNI’s ‘‘key man’’ policy.000. Zaunbrecher.500.000.000.00 in OMNI during these negotiations.000.1176 La.00 assignment on the actual key man policy when it was delivered. and that assignment was never submitted. testified that an assignment without a policy number would nevertheless be a permissible assignment if the assignment had attached a temporary conditional coverage agreement.00 binder on the OMNI key man policy.000. 2000. who invested $250. 4. within a few years. This was to be accomplished by exchanging the October 31. As a result.00 investment to Dixie. New York Life paid OMNI the $7. when he delivered the $7. the intention was always to guarantee the return of one $2.000. This understanding of an exchange theory or bridge theory is supported in the record by those other than Langley. about the $15. However. This did not happen in this case because the policy amount of $15. After Jeansonne died in the plane crash in February 2001. for a $2.000. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 2000 assignment on the three personal policies (ultimately worth $924. 2000. even though medical people were in the building giving a physical examination to Jeansonne for the purpose of immediately binding $1. This position is further supported in Langley’s testimony that.00 was above what New York Life was willing to bind.000. Dixie has conceded that as to all of the policies. Dixie had sold its stock in OMNI for well over $4.000. having an application rejected by New York Life did not rise to the level of fraudulent conduct.00 policy was actually written in November 2000. and put the proceeds of $850. because it was replaced by a valid assignment when the $7.500.000.00 ‘‘key man’’ policy application was not at issue.000. Dixie indicates that it did not know that the policy had not yet been written. the investors released their assignments on the OMNI key man policy. Dixie argues that misrepresentations were made on October 31.000.00.000. on November 28.000. instead of surrendering it under the ‘‘put option’’ for a return of the initial $2. the attorney with Toce. OMNI’s executive vice president. In fact.500. Dixie had opted to keep its OMNI stock.000.000.000.000. New York Life posits that. on the three personal poli- Ms. Anjier.000.00 policy.000. The only claim against New York Life is the claim of vicarious liability for the acts of Langley. Charmain Goodman. and that the assignment on it was ‘‘bogus’’ because there was no policy number written in the blank provided on the assignment form. to handle the release by Dixie. was cies. 3d SERIES months later.000.00 each.
drafted a memo shortly after the October 31.00. as S 26immediate and temporary collateral for its investment.00 risk binder on a new key man policy application. 3 Cir.App. rather than having a value of only $850. Dixie’s own attorney believed that the assignments were to be exchanged. Jeansonne replied that they would get some coverage.500. Zaunbrecher did not know who Langley was but did recall Toce asking Jeansonne whether OMNI had key man insurance on him. Accordingly. while and until the ‘‘key man’’ policy could be underwritten and delivered. that Toce would release the assignment on the personal policies.000.00 should have been a $2.00 on the key man policy application. Zaunbrecher further testified that ‘‘it was recognized that it would take some time to procure the coverage. when the key man coverage was in place.000.’’ (Emphasis added). testified regarding the ‘‘key man’’ application.000. When this was done.000. Cite as 11 So. Zaunbrecher testified that he assumed. Anjier testified that insurance assignments to fund ‘‘the put’’ was what was negotiated as part of the Stock Purchase Agreement and that he was not aware of any other assignment agreements.000. why would Dixie be given an assignment on a $1. CO.000. He also testified that Jeansonne offered his personal policies to Toce and that is when Zaunbrecher was asked to leave the room. One must ask.000.000.3d 1160 (La. in addition to an assignment on three personal policies.000. not stacked so as to provide Dixie with $4. He stated that he believed the assignment on the personal policies of . Dixie’s CPA and financial advisor at the meeting with Toce. In his affidavit. he recalled Jeansonne asking him to contact Toce to determine if he could get Toce to release the collateral assignment on the personal policies. probably in December 2000. The attorney at the meeting working on the Stock Purchase Agreement for Dixie.00. 2009) La.00.500.00 return on its investment.000.500. Hence.00 on the ‘‘key man’’ policy would be provided. Toce stated in his deposition that the $2.000. collectively worth just under $2. this testimony indicates that Zaunbrecher thought that the personal assurances that only Dixie got were a temporary bridge until the OMNI key man policy was issued. later.00 was in place. Zaunbrecher stated that he believed that the personal policies were sufficient to cover Dixie’s $2. 2000.00 investment. We also note that Dixie states in paragraph ten (10) of at least three of its pleadings that the assignments were ‘‘temporary’’ assignments to ensure that Dixie received a $2. DeHart. now that the key man coverage for $7. as there were negotiations going on with S 25Dixie and Advantage Capital as well.000.000.000. NEW YORK LIFE INS. Anjier stated that he was aware that ‘‘Mr.00 in life insurance.00 investment? One logical explanation is that Dixie got both the risk binder assignment and the personal policies assignment.JEANSONNE v.000.000. a new replacement assignment for $2. Zaunbrecher admitted that he was not in the room at the time. Anjier of Liskow & Lewis. 1177 present at the meeting on October 31. 2000 meeting. getting release forms from Langley for that purpose. He testified that he was asked to leave the room several times. He recalled at some point. Zaunbrecher stated that. if the personal policies themselves would cover his $2.000.000.000. and he made no reference to the second assignment given to Dixie on the intended binder of $1.000.’’ indicating again the application on the OMNI key man policy. Jeansonne was going to assign his personal policies to secure ‘‘the put ’’ until such time that the company obtained its own coverage.
and DeHart gave testimony that Langley ‘‘came back’’ at 9:00 p. Langley left the room.00 key man policy was issued. along with the $850.m.00 intended risk binder on the key man policy application. and ended at midnight on October 31st. 2000. and.000. New York Life argues that Langley had no contractual or legal or assumed duty to Anjier testified that he thought Langley came to the meeting in the afternoon.00 on the ‘‘key man’’ application.00 (plus accumulated cash value) assignment on the personal policies. DeHart’s testimony in this regard is not materially adverse to New York Life’s position that the $1. and shook Langley’s hand.. to deliver the assignments. what is important here is that the replacement did occur. and that Langley assured Toce that the life insurance policies fulfilled Jeansonne’s promises of security.000. together would have covered almost all of Toce’s investment.m. not to Toce. tion of New York Life that there was no fraudulent conduct by Langley. This is in conflict with Langley’s testimony that he did not come back that night after leaving in the afternoon.5 to meet with him and Toce to provide assignments of life insurance policies sufficient to guarantee Toce’s investment.’’ Dixie was never the beneficiary on any insurance policy on the life of Jeansonne.m. According to Toce. Toce testified that he met Langley for the first time between 10:00 and 11:00 p.’’ Dixie received an assignment on the policy.500. none of those gentlemen recalls statements by Langley or discussions in his presence regarding the value of the personal policies. written and submitted earlier in the afternoon by Langley.000.500. Therefore. without reference to the intended binder of $1. signed the documents.000. In fact. nor the possibility that fraudulent conduct could be proven at a trial on the merits. DeHart.000.000. Langley did nothing to mislead Toce. .000. who said that was the ‘‘whole universe’’ of what Langley did. Toce himself S 28stated in his deposition that Langley brought in the assignments and handed them to Langley’s client. the policy proceeds were paid upon death as promised. Jeansonne introduced Langley. which was the subject of the second assignment given that day. DeHart stated in his affidavit that Jeansonne summoned Langley at 9:00 p.00. DeHart also stated in his affidavit that on the night of October 31st.00 application and said he would come back over to re-do the second assignment. DeHart did say that he believed that the personal policies were themselves valued at $2. Moreover. did not replace that assignment until the $7. Toce received certain rights and options and ‘‘key man insurance with Dixie as beneficiary in exchange for a $2.000. Langley. therefore. Toce testified that Langley was not in the room when Jeansonne made representations to Toce about the value of the policies.000. The disputed facts regarding the time that one of the meetings took place is immaterial in this case.000. on October 31. and Anjier supports the posi5. When the key man policy for S 27$7.00 investment.000.m. The foregoing testimony by Zaunbrecher. The key man policy was issued as promised in an amount sufficient to fund the ‘‘put option.000. Langley testified that he informed Jeansonne immediately regarding the rejection by New York Life of the $15.000.1178 La. Jeansonne. Dixie received an assignment on it equal to the value of his investment. we find no evidence of fraud on the part of Langley.’’ Additionally. 3d SERIES Jeansonne was to be replaced by an assignment on the ‘‘key man’’ policy when it was issued. but Jeansonne told him not to worry about coming back over. Moreover. However. the proceeds were available to fund the ‘‘put option. where the negotiations began at 9:00 a.00 was issued the following month. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER.
and he was accompanied during the negotiations by Dixie’s CPA. Cite as 11 So. NEW YORK LIFE INS. [7] ‘‘To find fraud from silence or suppression of the truth. 889 So.1992). Nor do we find any special S 29relationship between Langley and Dixie that would create a duty on the part of Langley. not Dixie. Langley’s interaction with Dixie was extremely brief.App.’’ Greene v.700. Now Toce. Dixie has conceded that the assignment on the key man policy is not at issue.JEANSONNE v. William W.2d 630. Moreover. Anjier. as owner of Dixie. Elmore v.000.2d 1173). 1179 Dixie. [8] With regard to any acts of Langley that could be construed as negligence toward Dixie on the first assignment of the Jeansonne policies. seeks to hold an insurance agent liable for Toce’s own missteps or misunderstandings.000. as opposed to fraudulent acts or omissions requiring intent. where Dixie disposed of its OMNI stock in approximately three years and received over $4. Nutmeg is the liability insurer for the directors and officers (D & O) of OMNI. Moreover. Accordingly. there must exist a duty to speak or to disclose information. IV and John H. Accordingly. 632 (La. we find that Langley had no duty to discover secret or unknown statements that his insured might or might not have made regarding the amount of existing coverage.000. any damages that Dixie did or did not sustain cannot be attributed to New York Life. Dixie alleged a negligent supervision claim against two directors of OMNI. and by Dixie’s attorney. Toce is not an unsophisticated investor. not contract. Moreover. its claims are in tort. . DeHart. Because. Langley simply had no role in initiating the purchase or the sale of the OMNI stock. CO. We agree.00.App. as Dixie has asserted. Toce was an attorney who had Dixie’s CPA and Dixie’s attorney with him in the OMNI building during the negotiations. and was aware of the company’s debt before he made his investment. we find no duty or 39. 3 Cir. Rucks. and Langley was not involved in the negotiations between Jeansonne and Toce. 12/15/04). we again find that Langley owed no duty to Dixie. 2009) La. we find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of New York Life on summary judgment. Moreover. was familiar with corporations and financing.3d 1160 (La. Yet.080 (La. Langley testified that he had the personal policies with him on the 31st. 6. that he told Jeansonne in front of Toce that the policies totaled $850. Greene also found no special relationship that would create a duty. 2 Cir.000. we will not address damages. Kelly. Gulf Coast Bank. New York Life also included argument on Dixie’s failure to prove damages. There obviously was no contractual relationship between Langley and Dixie.00. There a bank owed no duty to disclose credit of borrower to investor/shareholder/guarantor where investor had two undergraduate degrees and a masters degree in engineering physics. We find no duty on the part of Langley that precludes summary judgment in favor of his S 30employer.6 The Dismissal of Nutmeg Dixie asserts that the trial court erred in granting Nutmeg’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of duty. Just as a tortfeasor’s insurance agent owes no duty to the tort victim to secure a certain amount of insurance coverage (See. 593 So. breach by New York Life. In addition to claims of fraud against the estate of David Jeansonne. he failed to investigate or ascertain the value of policies that he himself requested while making the very sizable investment on behalf of Dixie of $2. Toce indicated that he did not want them. Langley’s client was Jeansonne. and that when he spoke to Toce about the policies having accumulated cash values.00 for the stock.
the first half of the first sentence of La. 3d SERIES Untereker. however. . who were not present during the negotiations on October 31. Relation of directors and officers to corporation and shareholders A. As a threshold matter. Langley testified that when he told Jeansonne that New York Life would not write the $15. Nutmeg argues that its policy specifically excludes fraud as a covered claim. Jeansonne told Langley not to worry about coming back. by allegedly misrepresenting to Toce that their total value was $2. we will address no further analysis to the second assignment on the OMNI key man policy application 7 that was written on October 31.00. as previously stated in this opinion.R. because that failed assignment was replaced and funded without damage to anyone as a result of the temporary lapse.000.1180 La. Officers and directors shall be deemed to stand in a fiduciary relation to the corporation and its shareholders.000.S. Therefore.00. [9] We will first discuss Nutmeg’s liability for the actions of Jeansonne. Jeansonne. Nutmeg argues that Jeansonne’s assignment of his personal policies was 7. omission. to oversee Jeansonne and to ‘‘peruse’’ the documents resulting from the negotiations on October 31. Nutmeg cannot be held liable for any fraud alleged against Mr. which their policy does not cover.000. in their capacity as such. but against whom Dixie asserts a breach of duty to supervise Jeansonne and to ‘‘peruse’’ documents resulting from the negotiations on October 31. and a valid assignment was provided to each investor according to his investment. We now address Nutmeg’s liability for the allegedly negligent actions of the directors. [10] With regard to any claims of negligent misrepresentations made by Jeansonne. Dixie argues that Jeansonne also acted in his official capacity when he signed the Stock Purchase Agreement and the assignment to fund the ‘‘put option. 2000. the OMNI ‘‘key man’’ policy was written by New York Life for $7. misstatement. neglect or breach of duty. The Nutmeg policy clearly excludes fraudulent acts. done in his personal capacity. arising from.R. 2000. Dixie asserts as authority for the directors’ duty to it as a shareholder. malicious or fraudulent act or omission or any willful violation of lawTTTT’’ We agree. which provides in full as follows: S 32La. based upon. More specifically.00 policy and that he needed to come back to OMNI’s office to write a new assignment. 12:91.000. ‘‘Wrongful Act’’ at section IV. TTT’’ (emphasis added).00. Exclusions’’ that the insurer shall not be liable for a S 31loss in connection with any claim against its insured directors and officers ‘‘(J) for. the ‘‘put option’’ was funded. act.500. Shortly thereafter.(O) as ‘‘any actual or alleged error.’’ However. or in any way related to any deliberately dishonest. It asserts a breach of duty to Dixie. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. 12:91. 2000. rather than the $850. misleading statement. We agree that any negligent misrepresentations alleged against Jeansonne for statements made regarding his personal assurances and his personal policies are not covered in Nutmeg’s policy. as a new stockholder. The language in Nutmeg’s Hartford policy states under section ‘‘V.000.S. Rucks and Untereker. Nutmeg’s policy defines a covered. With regard to whether Jeansonne committed fraud on the first assignment of his three personal policies. the assignment on the key man policy to fund the ‘‘put option’’ ultimately succeeded and is not at issue. This argument has merit. committed or attempted by the Directors and Officers. and Dixie has conceded that it is not at issue.000.
care. however. 12:92(E). a director or officer is entitled to rely upon records and other materials and persons as specified in R.S. or engaged in conduct which demonstrates a greater disregard of the duty of care than gross negligence. Nothing herein contained shall derogate from any indemnification authorized by R. including the inapplicability of the provisions as to the fulfillment of the S 33duty under Subsections C and D and. care.JEANSONNE v. 1181 and shall discharge the duties of their respective positions in good faith. Dixie would have to allege and prove ‘‘gross negligence’’ against the directors under La. receiving the same assignment and ‘‘put option’’ that Dixie received.S. [12] There simply is no evidence of gross negligence on the part of Rucks or Untereker. judgment. [11] Based upon the foregoing.App. As used in this Section.R. there is nothing in the record to support such a claim. and skill which ordinary prudent men would exercise under similar circumstances in like positions. the burden of proving that the breach was the legal cause of damage suffered by the corporation. ‘‘gross negligence’’ shall be defined as a reckless disregard of or a carelessness amounting to indifference to the best interests of the corporation or the shareholders thereof. C. examining the documents would not have revealed any underlying falsehoods not apparent in the documents themselves. A director or officer who makes a business judgment in good faith fulfills the duty of diligence. care.S. and not until after the OMNI key man policy was written. (2) Is informed with respect to the subject of the business judgment to the extent the director or officer reasonably believes to be appropriate under the circumstances. how could there be a duty by directors Rucks and Untereker to oversee a personal assignment given by Jeansonne outside their presence? Moreover. Therefore. With regard to duty.000. in a damage action. As a factual matter. but in the amount of his smaller investment. judgment. NEW YORK LIFE INS. the collateral assignment forms used do not supply the amount of the policy or the amount of the assignment. a director or officer shall not be held personally liable to the corporation or the shareholders thereof for monetary damages unless the director or officer acted in a grossly negligent manner as defined in Subsection B of this Section. judgment. D. 2009) La. it could not have done so at a trial on the merits. (3) Rationally believes that the business judgment is in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders. and with that diligence. 3 Cir. without any bridge assurances and assignments to protect him until the key man policy was written. nor is there any evidence sufficient to show that Dixie could be able to prove gross negligence at a trial on the . including but not limited to intentional tortious conduct or intentional breach of his duty of loyalty. Based upon the record. CO. A person alleging a breach of the duty of diligence. Cite as 11 So. and skill owed by an officer or director under Subsection A shall have the burden of proving the alleged breach of duty.3d 1160 (La. In fulfilling his duties under this Section.00 in OMNI. Rucks himself invested $250. and skill under Subsection A of this Section if the director or officer: (1) Does not have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject of the business judgment. if the Nutmeg policy does not cover the personal acts of Jeansonne. 12:91(A). 12:83. B. E. It did not do so at the summary judgment level.
or any committee thereof 8. See Etienne v. we dovetail into Nutmeg’s motion for summary judgment on the Inteservice of citation or other process cannot be made on the insured. However. La. (e) when the insurer is a UM carrier.8 [13] S 34Additionally. 6/23/99). the Shareholder’s Release Agreement of July 2003 provides that the shareholder ‘‘agrees. Co.S.R.1182 La. insurer dismissed under direct action statute because none of the enumerated situations existed). We disagree. attaching a procedural printout of the district court case. 747 So. 12:92(E) below. Summary judgment on the issue of duty was properly granted. as fatal to Dixie’s claims under the direct action statute. 12:92(E) provides as follows: E. or by any committee of the board of directors. National Auto. therefore.App. provides that an action may be brought against the insurer alone only when: (a) the insured has begun bankruptcy proceedings. 759 So. S 35Here. ‘‘personally. Louisiana Revised Statutes 12:91(E) provides that any person claiming breach under (A) must prove the inapplicability of Subsections (C) and (D). 12:91(D) provides that a director or officer is entitled to rely upon records and other materials and persons as specified in La. affirmed.12/17/99). We find that the Release Agreement requires. that the trial court erred in finding Dixie’s failure to ‘‘re-serve’’ Rucks and Untereker.P. 12/17/03). Ins. Dixie argues that it reserved its rights against Nutmeg as the insurer when it agreed in settlement with the directors. The direct action statute. where driver did not bring suit against named insured until more than three years after accident. the board of directors. (b) the insured is insolvent. to not pursue them personally. and that Dixie never perfected its claims against the directors due to a failure to serve them. . and. 22:655(B)(1). art. that any of the circumstances enabling a plaintiff to sue the insurer alone applied). opinions. though we are backtracking somewhat in addressing this procedural issue. La. 03–0155 (La. Therefore. and record did not indicate.R. without releasing any claims. La. 751 So. engineer. or by any other person as to matters the director reasonably believes are within such other person’s professional or expert competence and which person is selected with reasonable care by the board of directors or any committee thereof or any officer having the authority to make such selection.App. or by any counsel. art. not to attempt to collect any money’’ from Rucks and Untereker. after settling with them and ‘‘dismissing’’ them. all proceedings are absolutely null.S. reports. appraiser.2d 866.Code Civ. 99–2610 (La. 1201 provides that without citation and service. La. 863 So. Hiaton. writ granted. La.2d 51 (under direct action statute. 3 Cir. (c) by any of the corporation’s officers or employees. 3d SERIES merits.R.2d 671 (suit against defendants dismissed on the grounds that they had not been served. More specifically.S. driver’s claim against automobile liability insurer arising out of accident would be dismissed for failure to join insured. be fully protected in relying in good faith upon the records of the corporation and upon such information.R. in the performance of his duties. (d) the cause of action is between certain family members.. 927(B). failure to serve Rucks and Untereker is fatal to the application of the direct action statute herein. A director shall. Brown v. in its reservation of rights.2d 593. and see. 98– 1946 (La.4/25/00). None of these enumerated conditions exist as to Rucks and Untereker. which Dixie has not done and could not do. not releasing any claims. Code Civ. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER.P.R. Dixie further includes inside its assignment of error as to the dismissal of Nutmeg on the issue of duty. 4 Cir. Dixie could not ‘‘dismiss’’ them.’’ Nutmeg asserts that Dixie never served Rucks and Untereker. and driver did not allege. Dixie points to no evidence of service. 22:655(B)(1). or statements presented to the corporation.S.S. 99–2610 (La. or (f) the insured is deceased. or independent or certified public accountant selected with reasonable care by the board of directors or any committee thereof or any officer having the authority to make such selection. including a petroleum reservoir engineer. La.
found that Rucks and Untereker are protected by La. We have found that Nutmeg’s policy specifically excludes any intentional and fraudulent actions of Jeansonne and does not cover any personal actions of Jeansonne resulting in negligence. 3 Cir.’’ the provision for the key man policy and the coverage of Dixie’s $2. NEW YORK LIFE INS. therefore. and the status of available information at the court’s disposal at the time of the February 2008 judgment.App. Accordingly.JEANSONNE v. no Integration Clause can alleviate a defendant’s responsibility for damages caused by fraud. which allows them to rely on the Stock Purchase Agreement’s Integration Clause forbidding outside agreements. Thus.9 collateral source rule in opposing the defen- . We have. and Nutmeg’s policy excludes fraud as a covered claim. The Stock Purchase Agreement is a record of the OMNI corporation. CO. We fail to see the logic in Dixie’s argument. cannot rely upon it. 2009) La. we find it unnecessary to address damages and its S 37attendant issues.92. According to La. Dixie cannot argue that Rucks and Untereker had a duty to discover and peruse a personal assignment of Jeansonne’s. Dixie S 36overlooks the fact that fraud is not alleged against directors Rucks and Untereker. or any of the extra assurances allegedly given Dixie by Jeansonne.R. Dixie argues that Rucks and Untereker were not parties to the Stock Purchase Agreement and. Nutmeg is correct. 1183 gration Clause.00 investment. given the arguments.3d 1160 (La.R. Cite as 11 So. but does not memorialize the assignment of the personal policies of Jeansonne. The trial court granted summary judgment on the issue of damages in the same February 2008 judgment wherein it granted summary judgment in favor of New York Life and granted summary judgment to Nutmeg on the issue of duty and on the Integration Clause. we find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Nutmeg on the issue of the Integration Clause in the Stock Purchase Agreement. Specifically.000. 12:92(E) above. the facts and circumstances of this case. We have determined a lack of any evidence pertaining to gross negligence in their duties to shareholders and to the corporation. Page 14 of the Stock Purchase Agreement memorializes the ‘‘put option. Dixie argues that where fraud is alleged. 9. the Integration Clause is located at page 18. Dixie questionably attempted to apply the Finally.R. Accordingly. Nutmeg filed a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment on the issue of damages.S.S. and then ignore the OMNI Stock Purchase Agreement executed by Jeansonne as president and CEO of OMNI. Section IV.000.(B) of the Stock Purchase Agreement and provides as follows: (B) This Stock Purchase Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements and understandings in connection therewith. This Stock Purchase Agreement may be amended only by a writing executed by all parties hereto. Rucks and Untereker are protected under La. 12:91 and 12:92 in relying upon the Integration Clause in the Stock Purchase Agreement. We have further concluded that Rucks and Untereker did not have a duty to discover alleged oral promises and representations made by Jeansonne in a personal capacity that could not be detected from the records and documents filed with OMNI.S. 12:91 and 12. wherein Nutmeg asserts that Rucks and Untereker are protected in their reliance upon the provisions in the Stock Purchase Agreement. We disagree. moreover.
. June 3. Dixie makes no reference however. Thomas M. Criminal Law O661 A defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense is fundamental. which are its damages. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Appellant. and that it was fraudulently deprived of $2. without application of our Civil Code articles. yet Dixie did not take its case . IV. Dixie Chris Omni. .C. to the fact that approximately $924. dants’ assertions that Dixie had doubled its investment with OMNI and therefore suffered no damages. Background: Defendant was convicted in the Ninth Judicial District Court. Witnesses O390.00 was paid by New York Life on the three personal policies of Jeansonne. are due on death. Peters. 2. Dixie also argued that life insurance proceeds come under the description of sui generis. held that: (1) defendant provided an adequate foundation for the impeachment of the inmate with the inmate’s prior inconsistent statements that defendant was not involved in the escape. J. 607(D)(2). No. Parish of Rapides.000.1184 La. upon which Dixie had an assignment. but rather settled with Faye Jeansonne for just twenty percent (20%) of that amount. of simple escape based on the escape of a fellow inmate. Yeager.660. Holdings: The Court of Appeal. 2009. The argument of Faye Jeansonne in her motion for summary judgment prior to settlement was that Dixie’s assignment was not valid because Dixie did not take delivery of the policies. and evidentiary rules may not infringe on that right. (2) probative value of the inmate’s prior inconsistent statements was not outweighed by any potential prejudice. No.. and their accumulated cash value. 3d SERIES Any damages that Dixie may or may not have sustained cannot be imputed to Nutmeg. Langley testified that when he talked to Toce about the personal policies. Courtney Paul SAVOY. 3 Cir.L. 11 SOUTHERN REPORTER. AFFIRMED. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing. 6/3/09) STATE of Louisiana v.000.000.App. L. in his briefcase. LSA–C. 08–1444. 613. 1.00 in life insurance proceeds.1 Probative value of a prior inconsistent statement must be measured against the prejudicial impact that potentially may result from the jury’s improper use of the evidence. 288. Vacated and remanded. the February 2008 judgment dismissing New York Life Insurance Company and Nutmeg Insurance Company is hereby affirmed. Witnesses O388(10) Defendant on trial for escape of a fellow inmate provided an adequate founto trial on those life insurance proceeds and argue sui generis. Third Circuit. Toce indicated that he did not want the policies. Appeal followed.E. and (3) error in trial court’s refusal to allow defendant to impeach the inmate with the prior inconsistent statements was not harmless. Court of Appeal of Louisiana. 3. arts. J. 2008-1444 (La.
Documents Similar To NY Life Insurance Company_Done