Opinion ID: 1458154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Attorney's Fees in the Jones Litigation

Text: The district court denied defendants' motion in limine to keep from the jury evidence of the money plaintiffs were forced to spend to defend the Jones's lawsuit. The jury verdict included these costs and attorney's fees. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should not have been allowed to recover attorney's fees spent defending the underling lawsuit. We review this evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. [38] We hold that the district court properly denied defendants' motion. While there is no Louisiana case directly on point, this conclusion is consistent with the rule found in Section 914(2) of the Second Restatement of Torts: One who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover reasonable compensation for loss of time, attorney fees and other expenditures thereby suffered or incurred in the earlier action. Plaintiffs, due to the torts of the defendants, were required to expend costs and attorney's fees defending the Jones lawsuit. They also had to pay to settle the Jones action. In this lawsuit, plaintiffs proved that defendants were legally responsible for their financial damages, which included costs and attorney's fees. Under the jury's apportionment of fault, the defendants appropriately were required to pay for a portion, but not all, of these costs and attorney's fees. Defendants argue that this case is governed by Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. [39] In Sea-Land, we held in a contribution action that the plaintiffs could not recover attorney's fees expended defending the underlying suit. [40] We have already held that this suit is not a contribution action, but rather a lawsuit claiming that defendants breached independent duties owed to Kadlec; therefore, Sea-Land is inapposite.