Opinion ID: 1855359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Solidary Liability

Text: Plaintiff next argues that even if American's policy does not cover Ms. Sebastien, plaintiff's act of timely filing claims against Sebastien and American interrupts prescription as to the Morrow firm due to its solidary liability with its employee and its insurer. On the other hand, defendants contend that plaintiff's failure to reserve rights against the Morrow firm upon its release of Ms. Sebastien destroyed any solidary liability between the employee and employer, relying upon Sampay v. Morton Salt Co., 395 So.2d 326 (La.1981) to support that contention. Each of these arguments is faulty for the reasons that follow. In Sampay, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident and filed suit against the driver and the driver's employer; however, plaintiff was unsure whether Morton Salt Company or Davis Truck Service employed the driver, so plaintiff timely filed suit against both companies and their respective liability insurers in the alternative. Sampay later settled his claims against the driver and against Davis Truck Service, but he reserved his rights to proceed against Morton. Morton then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because Sampay had dismissed the driver, the release of the employee discharged Morton from any further liability as the driver's purported employer. Although summary judgment was granted, this court reversed, holding the plaintiff's release of the employee from suit did not preclude recovery against the remaining employer, overruling Williams v. Marionneaux, 240 La. 713, 124 So.2d 919 (1960). Sampay, 395 So.2d at 329. The legislature seemingly codified our holding in Sampay that dismissal of a solidary obligor from suit does not prohibit an obligee from proceeding against remaining solidary obligorsby enacting La. Civ.Code art. 1802. [2] The Revision Comments to La. Civ.Code art. 1802 further indicate an obligee need not reserve rights against remaining solidary obligors in order to proceed against those solidary obligors for fulfillment of the obligation. [3] Article 1802 encourages partial settlement agreements without resulting in the renunciation of any outstanding debt. However, neither Sampay nor La. Civ. Code art. 1802 resolve the issues in this matter. In Sampay, the plaintiff had initially instigated timely claims against the employee and his purported employers. When Sampay dismissed the driver and one employer, the remaining employer was already a party to the suit, leaving no opportunity for prescription to run. Similarly, although an obligee need not reserve his rights pursuant La. Civ.Code art. 1802, the obligee cannot rely on these provisions to the exclusion of the remaining Code articles that require notice, pleading, and imposing limitations of prescription. In the instant matter, the only basis upon which the Morrow firm could be liable to the plaintiff is under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Because the employer and employee are solidarily liable as to the victim, Sampay, 395 So.2d at 329, it was unnecessary to pursue a claim against the Morrow firm as long as its employee remained a party to the suit. Prescription against the Morrow firm was interrupted for as long as the claim against Sebastien remained viable. La. Civ.Code art. 1799 and art. 3503. However, plaintiff dismissed the Morrow firm's employee from the suit with prejudice on March 8, 1995. Thus, prescription against the Morrow firm was no longer interrupted after that date. Although plaintiff could have filed suit against the Morrow firm after Sebastien's dismissal without having reserved his rights to do so, he failed to file that claim in a timely fashion, causing it to prescribe. A claim that has prescribed cannot be revived. See Rizer v. American Surety & Fidelity Ins. Co., 95-1200 (La.3/8/96), 669 So.2d 387, 391, reh'g denied, (La.4/19/96). Likewise, plaintiff's existing claim against American, who was not solidarily liable with Sebastien, does not serve to interrupt prescription against the Morrow firm because the claim against the firm had prescribed before the Morrow firm was named as a defendant. American had no obligation to the plaintiff and could not be considered an obligor, solidary or otherwise. Filing suit against a party who is later determined to be without obligation to the plaintiff does not interrupt prescription against a purported solidary obligor who was not timely sued. Williams v. Northgate Hosp., 98-1477 (La. App. 3d Cir.5/5/99), 734 So.2d 1251, writ denied, 99-1588 (La.9/17/99), 747 So.2d 565. Moreover, while it is true that an insurer is solidarily liable with its insured, timely suit against one solidary obligor does not interrupt prescription that has run against a second solidary obligor. Rizer, 669 So.2d at 391; Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532, 536 n. 5 (La.1992); Noggarath v. Fisher, 557 So.2d 1036, 1037 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990). We also reject plaintiff's argument that the amended pleadings adding the Morrow law firm should relate back to the amended petition as filed against American. Plaintiff's reliance on article 1153 and Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083 (La.1983) is misplaced. Article 1153 and the Ray criteria typically apply to determine if a supplemental petition relates back to the original in situations where the wrong party has been named as the original defendant, and not, as here, when additional solidary obligors are named. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1153 is inapplicable to the situation where a plaintiff has timely sued and correctly named at least one solidary obligor, or when articles of the Civil Code are applicable. See Gebhardt v. State of Louisiana, 94-838 (La.App. 5th Cir.3/15/95), 652 So.2d 150, 151-52, writ denied, 95-1235 (La.6/23/95), 656 So.2d 1033; Picone v. Lyons, 593 So.2d 829, 831-32 (La.App. 4th Cir.), reversed on other grounds, 601 So.2d 1375 (La.1992). Suit against one solidary obligor interrupts prescription as to other solidary obligors, LSA-C.C. art. 3503. While the allegation of solidary liability is pending, the exception of prescription remains premature. However, if there is no solidary liability because the timely filed defendant is ultimately found not liable to plaintiff at all, then the exception should be maintained at that time. See Younger v. Marshall Industries, Inc., 618 So.2d 866 (La. 1993); Gebhardt, 652 So.2d at 152. Because we agree with the court of appeal's finding that the American insurance policy does not provide coverage to Ms. Sebastien, the Morrow firm cannot be liable in solido and, therefore, was untimely sued. Consequently, we sustain the defendants' exception of prescription. In sum, plaintiff cannot bootstrap the Morrow firm into the lawsuit by timely naming American as a defendant. American's only potential liability arises from its contract of insurance with the Morrow firm, and the Morrow firm's only potential liability arises out of the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, plaintiff's vicarious liability claim again the Morrow firm was eliminated when plaintiff allowed that claim to prescribe after dismissing Sebastien and her insurer from the suit with prejudice. Thus, plaintiff has no cause of action against American. Because we have determined the plaintiff's claims against the Morrow firm have prescribed and because plaintiff has no cause of action against American, we decline to address the Direct Action Statute.