Case Name: Mrs. Kathryn McNEAL, Individually and as tutrix of her minor child, Myrna McNeal v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-05-07
Citations: 278 So. 2d 108
Docket Number: No. 53091
Parties: Mrs. Kathryn McNEAL, Individually and as tutrix of her minor child, Myrna McNeal v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.
Judges: DIXON, J., concurs with written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 278
Pages: 108–112

Head Matter:
Mrs. Kathryn McNEAL, Individually and as tutrix of her minor child, Myrna McNeal v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.
No. 53091.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 7, 1973.
Michael M. Wahlder, Alexandria, Cecil Gill Smith, Jr., Natchez, Miss., for plaintiff-applicant.
Gist, Methvin & Trimble, DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Alexandria, for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
SANDERS, Chief Justice.
This delictual action" raises questions concerning res judicata and conflict of laws.
On August 17, 1969, Mr. and Mrs. Ves-ter L. McNeal, with theii daughter, Myrna, allegedly residents of Pineville, Louisiana, were returning to their home from an automobile trip to Tennessee. While passing through Mississippi, Mr. McNeal lost control of his vehicle and it left the highway. All three occupants were injured. Mr. McNeal subsequently died.
On behalf of herself and her minor daughter, Mrs. McNeal brought the present suit in Louisiana against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, her husband's insurer, for damages. During its pendency, however, she brought a second suit against the administrator of her husband's estate and State Farm Mutual in Mississippi.
The Louisiana case was held in abeyance pending a decision by the Mississippi courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the dismissal of the Mississippi suit. It dismissed the plaintiff's suit against her husband's estate on the ground that the wife and minor daughter had "no standing to maintain a civil suit" against her husband's estate because of the family immunity doctrine.
It dismissed the suit against State Farm Mutual, the husband's insurer, on the ground that the Louisiana Direct Action Statute (LSA-R.S. 22:655) was inapplicable and no direct action against an insurer was permitted under Mississippi law. See McNeal v. Administrator of Estate of McNeal, Miss., 254 So.2d 521 (1971).
Following the Mississippi decision, State Farm Mutual filed an exception of res ju-dicata in the Louisiana suit. The district court maintained the exception and dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeal affirmed, being also of the opinion that the Mississippi law of family immunity applied to bar recovery. La.App., 269 So.2d 499. On plaintiff's application, we granted cer-tiorari to review the judgment. See La., 271 So.2d 258. We now reverse.
The doctrine of res judicata is stricti juris, and any doubt as to its application must be resolved in favor of maintaining the action. Quinette v. Delhommer, 247 La. 1121, 176 So.2d 399 (1965); West v. His Creditors, 3 La.Ann. 529 (1848).
Linder the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, a judgment that is not on the merits is no bar to later proceedings on the same cause of action. U.S.Const. Art. IV, § 1; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832 (1946); Laroussini v. Werlein, 50 La.Ann. 637, 23 So. 467 (1898); Lerner v. Bischoff, La.App., 193 So. 236 (1940); 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, § 1235, p. 237; Leñar, The Law of Conflict of Laws § 73, p. 138 (1959); 15 Tul.L.Rev. 312-314 (1941).
Although the Mississippi judgment dismissed the suit against State Farm Mutual, the insurer, it did so on the technical ground that the absence of a direct action statute and the family immunity doctrine barred the suit in Mississippi. The judgment did not reach the merits of the case. Hence, as to the present suit in Louisiana, it is not res judicata.
The Court of Appeal was also in error in holding that the Mississippi law of family immunity applied to bar recovery in this Louisiana suit. In Jagers v. Royal Indmenity Co., La., 276 So.2d 309 (1973), we recently repudiated the iron rule of the law of the place of the accident. We held that, because Louisiana had the only recognizable interest, its law of intra-family liability would apply to an out-of-state automobile accident when the plaintiff was domiciled in Louisiana, the insured was domiciled in Louisiana, the motor vehicle was registered in Louisiana, and the insurance policy was issued in Louisiana.
The present suit was dismissed on an exception. No evidence of the pertinent facts appears in the record. Hence, the decision of the Court of Appeal, holding the Mississippi law applicable was premature.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of the district court, is reversed and set aside and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed and according to law. All costs in this Court and the Court of Appeal are assessed against the defendant; all other costs shall await the outcome of the suit.
DIXON, J., concurs with written reasons.
SUMMERS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned.
. In its answer, State Farm denies that Vester L. MeNeal was a resident of Pine-ville, Rapides Parish, Louisiana at the time of the accident.