Case Name: Laverne PEARSON v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY and Shell Chemical, Inc.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-08-20
Citations: 281 So. 2d 724
Docket Number: No. 52697
Parties: Laverne PEARSON v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY and Shell Chemical, Inc.
Judges: MARCUS, J., dissents with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 281
Pages: 724–728

Head Matter:
Laverne PEARSON v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY and Shell Chemical, Inc.
No. 52697.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Aug. 20, 1973.
Gordon M. White, Darrell D. White, White & May, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-applicant.
William A. Norfolk, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
Plaintiff, Laverne Pearson, was injured on August 2, 1968 while employed as a maintenance millwright at the Shell plant near Geismar, Louisiana. Plaintiff filed suit against Shell Chemical, Inc. (Shell) in tort and, in the alternative, against Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (Hartford) as the workmen's compensation insurer of H. E. Weiss, Inc. (Weiss) on April 21, 1969, alleging that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Shell's employee, Jim Champagne, and that Shell was not plaintiff's employer, but a third party. Hartford answered admitting that plaintiff was employed as a millwright by Weiss, whom Hartford insured, that plaintiff was injured in the course and scope of his employment by Weiss, and that compensation payments had been made by Hartford to plaintiff. Shell excepted to plaintiff's suit on the ground that his exclusive remedy was in workmen's compensation ; Hartford intervened in the tort claim for recovery of compensation paid.
On August 1, 1969, by supplemental and amended petition, plaintiff joined Jim Champagne as a defendant in the tort action on the ground that Champagne's negligence contributed to plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff further alleged that Champagne was possibly deceased, and if this was the case, plaintiff asked that his heirs and legatees be made parties to the action.
Plaintiff's second supplemental and amended petition filed on March 30, 1970, dismissed the claim against Shell, corrected the spelling of the name of the defendant Jim Champagne to Jim Champine, and joined the Travelers Insurance Company as a party defendant on the ground that Jim Champine was insured by Travelers for his acts of negligence and it was liable for the damages claimed by plaintiff in his other pleadings. Travelers filed a peremptory exception of the prescription of one year to plaintiff's second supplemental and amended petition, alleging that plaintiff's claim as to it had prescribed since it was not made a party defendant until March 30, 1970, whereas the alleged tort occurred on August 2, 1968. The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed plaintiff's action as to Travelers. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. We granted a writ of review.
LSA-R.S. 9:5801 provides that all prescriptions against defendants sued are interrupted by the timely filing of suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. The suit against Champine interrupted prescription as to the claims against him.
By effect of law, those persons are solidary obligors who are bound to perform the same obligation, where payment by any one exonerates the rest and where the debtor may compel full performance from any one of such obligors. Civil Code Articles 2082, 2091. This is so even though the obligations of the obligors arise from separate acts or by different reasons of law. Civil Code Articles 2091, 2093. Thus, joint tortfeasors are solidary obli-gors. Civil Code Article 2324. So are an insured and his liability insurer, Hidalgo v. Dupuy, 122 So.2d 639 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1960).
In the case at hand, Champine, if liable, is solidarily liable with his insurer, Travelers, for the tort obligation for which recovery is sought. This being so, a timely suit filed against either of these solidary obligors interrupted prescription as to both of them. Civil Code Article 2097. The timely suit against Champine interrupted prescription against his liability insurer, Travelers. The fact that Champine's name was misspelled in the first supplemental and amended petition, which was timely filed, is of no moment. Jackson v. American Employer's Insurance Company, 202 La. 23, 11 So.2d 225 (1942); Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, Inc., 208 La. 538, 23 So.2d 209 (1945).
Article 3536 of the Civil Code sets forth the one year prescriptive period for actions for damages resulting from offenses. The burden of proof rests upon the party pleading prescription. Succession of Thompson, 191 La. 480, 186 So. 1 (1938).
For the purpose of passing on the exception of prescription, the Court of Appeal had, and this Court has, before it as a record for review, only the pleadings and the minutes of the court. Apparently no evidence was adduced on the plea of prescription in the trial court. Plaintiff alleged in his original and supplemental petitions facts which are sufficient on their face, if not controverted, to establish that suit against Travelers, the defendant's insurer, was timely filed. They have alleged in their several petitions that the defendant, Champine, committed acts which constitute tort liability. They allege that Travelers is the insurer of the tortfeasor. Thus, they factually allege the solidary liability of the two defendants. The plea of prescription was filed before Travelers answered and was passed upon by the trial court, at least as it appears from our record, without any controverting evidence.
Since it is patent on the face of the record that the defendant, Travelers, is solidarily liable with the defendant Cham-pine under the facts alleged and there being no controverting evidence, the defendant's plea of prescription could not be sustained on such a record. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to present his evidence and have his case heard on the merits against Travelers and Champine. A. plea of prescription may be sustained before trial but even when it fails on the preliminary hearing, it may be sustained later in the proceeding if it should be established the plea was founded on good grounds such as those alleged here — failure of soli-dary liability and, therefore, lack of timely institution of suit against the second defendant.
We hold that the lower court erred in sustaining the prescriptive plea filed by Travelers. We pass upon the record before us reversing both the lower court and Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views here expressed. Costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal and in this Court are cast against Travelers. 'All other costs are to await final disposition of these proceedings.
MARCUS, J., dissents with reasons.