Case Name: Linda BUNCH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCHILLING DISTRIBUTING INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1991-10-17
Citations: 589 So. 2d 502
Docket Number: No. 90-116
Parties: Linda BUNCH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCHILLING DISTRIBUTING INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., and GUIDRY, FORET, DOUCET and KNOLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 589
Pages: 502–507

Head Matter:
Linda BUNCH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCHILLING DISTRIBUTING INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-116.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Oct. 17, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1991.
Writ Denied Feb. 14, 1992.
Jack P. Showers, Lafayette, for plaintiffs/appellants.
Vincent J. Saitta, Lafayette, for defendant/appellee, Friedman.
William H. Lambert, Lafayette, for defendant/appellee, Tassin.
Roy, Carmouche, Bivins, Judice, Henke & Breaud, John A. Bivins, Lafayette, for defendant/appellee.
Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., and GUIDRY, FORET, DOUCET and KNOLL, JJ.

Opinion:
DOUCET, Judge.
This case arises from an automobile accident in which Joy Tassin, a 13-year old girl, sustained injuries which caused her death.
Joy was a guest passenger in a car driven by her aunt, Connie Clowes, when that vehicle was involved in a collision with a pickup truck owned by Schilling Distributing, Inc. Joy died approximately seven hours after the accident during surgery for injuries sustained during the accident.
Joy's parents, Bruce Tassin and Linda Bunch, are divorced. Each filed a separate suit alleging wrongful death and survivor-ship claims. Named as defendants were, among others, Connie Clowes and Zurich American Insurance Co., the uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier for Mr. and Mrs. Charles Friedman. Mrs. Friedman was Joy's aunt with whom she had lived for several months prior to the accident.
The suits were consolidated for trial. During the trial by jury of the consolidated cases, the court declared a mistrial as to the claims of Linda Bunch. The court proceeded to a verdict in connection with Mr. Tassin's suit.
The jury in the Tassin case awarded $30,-000 for damages suffered by Joy Tassin but found that Joy was not a resident of the Charles Friedman household on July 3, 1986, the day of her death. Therefore, the UM coverage provided by Zurich Insurance in the policy of insurance issued to the Friedmans was found not to cover damages suffered by Joy; that coverage being only provided for residents of the Friedman household.
Tassin appealed from the jury verdict's finding that Joy was not a member of the Friedman household at the time of her death. His appeal was subsequently abandoned, on motion of the defendants, for failure to pay estimated costs of appeal.
In February of 1988, prior to the consolidation of the two suits for trial, Tassin filed a petition for intervention in February of 1988, in his ex-wife, Linda Bunch's action. Linda Bunch's suit was tried separately in April 1989. The jury in the Bunch trial found that Joy was a member of the Friedman household at the time of her death. As a result, they reached a verdict in favor of Linda Bunch, as evidenced by the following special verdict form turned in by the jury and filed into the record.
The trial court, in its amended judgment of July 18, 1989, stated that Linda Bunch was entitled to only half of the amount of damages awarded for the conscious pain and suffering of Joy Tassin, $25,000.00. Therefore, adding this amount to the jury awards for medical and funeral expenses and for wrongful death, the court rendered judgment in favor of Linda Bunch in the total amount of $60,000.00, with judicial interest from February 12, 1987.
Mrs. Bunch appeals, arguing that since Bruce Tassin was not before the court, she should have been awarded the full amount representing Joy Tassin's conscious pain and suffering.
Bruce Tassin was before the Bunch trial court as an intervenor; however, because Tassin had already proceeded to trial and final judgment in a separate suit, his intervention may not have been viable. In a comparison of Tassin's original petition in his own suit and his petition of intervention in the Bunch suit, we find that an exception of lis pendens as to the intervention would have been well founded. Lis pendens is available where a final judgment in a prior suit would be res judicata in a later suit. Sims v. Sims, 247 So.2d 602 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1971); Scott v. Ware, 160 So.2d 237 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1964); Miguez v. Miguez, 128 So.2d 804 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1961). However since no exception was filed, the prosecution of both cases was properly continued until the rendition of the first final judgment which is conclusive of all. La.C.C.P. art. 531; Morice v. Morice, 386 So.2d 913 (La.1980). Essentially, the first final judgment renders all other pending matters res judicata.
Because an appeal of the judgment in the Tassin case was pending at the time of trial of the Bunch suit, the intervention was pending at that time also. However, since that time, but prior to the rendition of a judgment on the appeal of this case, the Tassin appeal was dismissed, which had the effect of finalizing the judgment in the Tassin case, thereby concluding the intervention as well.
As a result we need not consider Tassin when determining whether the award was properly allocated.
Absent a pending claim by Tassin, we can find no authority which would allow the apportionment of the award for the conscious pain and suffering of Joy Tassin to Bruce Tassin. The court in Booty v. Kentwood Manor Nursing Home, Inc., 483 So.2d 634 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985), writ denied, 486 So.2d 754, (La.1986), reversed a similar apportionment of an award, as follows:
"In Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 453 So.2d 949 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984), affirmed and amended in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 475 So.2d 1040 (La.1985), this court stated:
'(W)e know of no authority which states that when only one of the potential claimants is before the court (on a survival action) that his award must be reduced proportionately by the amount that could have been claimed by other parties.' "
Accordingly, we find that Mrs. Bunch is entitled to the full $50,000.00 award for the conscious pain and suffering of Joy Tassin.
As a result, the judgment of the trial court is amended to reflect an award of $85,000.00 to Linda Bunch. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are to be paid by the appel-lee, Zurich American Insurance Co.
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
GUIDRY and FORET, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.