Julia Morgan VS State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Inc., Darnell Browning, Superior Services Industry, Inc. and William Rogers d/b/a Lake Park Laundry
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 0334 JULIA P MORGAN VERSUS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY INC DARNELL BROWNING SUPERIOR SERVICES INDUSTRY INC AND WILLIAM ROGERS D B A LAKE PARK LAUNDRY Judgment Appealed from Rendered November 2 2007 the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket Number 470 838 tjcW Honorable Timothy E Kelley Judge Kris A PelTet Counsel for Baton Plaintiff Appellant Rouge LA Julia P Joseph N Lotwick Baton Rouge LA Morgan Counsel for Defendant Appellee B G Construction and Restoration Inc Daniel A Reed Baton Rouge LA BEFORE Counsel for Defendant Appellee Republic Vanguard Insurance Company WHIPPLE GUIDRY AND HUGHES n GUIDRY J A homeowner she hired to repair her in the record before we appeals a judgment dismissing her home after and us a finding fire claims against Having thoroughly reviewed no error a contractor the evidence in the determinations of the trial court affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 27 home of Julia P maintained Fire and a 1999 Morgan a fire that emanated from the Ms Morgan was State Farm Casualty Company the and at Ms brought with him Barry Jenkins the B Restoration repair Thereafter Ms G work on Morgan s home owner not remained in against the perforn1ed the was B processed to night of the G to perform approximately in October 1999 Morgan filed suit against State the failure to G Construction and completed the work on State Farm on the one Farm and her year agent properly adjust her claim fully compensated for all the losses she suffered and that her home a state of companies later amended her not at Ms Browning alleging that based was of B on her home The company commenced the work anniversary of the fire She immediately called her agent Apparently dissatisfied with how her claim she the time of the fire Morgan contracted with four weeks after the date of the fire and Darnell at policy of homeowner s insurance covering her home with repOli the occurrence The agent arrived fire and home at the fireplace damaged work on petition Ms that cleaned her home and clothes petition to name additional Morgan made claims following the fire companies critical to She and individuals that her home relative to the fire which claims and defendants issue in the matter before However Also in that disrepair are us this appeal amending petition in which she named is Ms B 2 G Morgan s first supplemental and as a defendant based on its alleged failure to make the This manner repairs petition supplemental and Company Morgan testified court at as an as took the favor of B After G G failed to Ms repair judgment signed August not Morgan later filed the and Insurance B interlocutory rulings the G on June 14 2006 Ms testimony of a witness accepted by under advisement and later rendered Morgan failed her home in a 22 2006 that Ms accepting as to on workmanlike to prove It is from that manner Morgan appeals asserting the uncontradicted true judgment in present sufficient evidence that the trial testimony offered by her expert witness and in reaching conclusions that she maintains the record second G motions presented a considering the testimony and other evidence presented matter finding elTed in G answered the expert in estimating and construction Mr Jenkins testified the trial court the insurer ofB the trial and G that B Ms pretrial discovery behalf of B court and workmanlike October 13 2000 and B on finally heard the claims asserted against court the trial timely professional a amending petition naming Republic Vanguard After extensive trial filed was defendant as a her home in Morgan s claims Ms petition denying to are not supported by 1 DISCUSSION The primary evidence relied on by Ms Morgan in presenting testimony of Winston Wood accepted by the trial It is Ms and construction In its reasons for compelling B as Morgan s contention that judgment The comi finds that the expert in estimating Mr Wood s testimony the ttial court held expert testimony of Mr Wood for the Plaintiff was not property in question occurred many years after the completed There additions modifications to the house was were evidence were the unit at a result of defective later date by others 3 produced that additional years which that time rendered Mr Wood s made in the together with wear and tear associated during opinions almost worthless to the court In fact conditioning as an his review ofthe G work had been addressed court her claim is the intervening many of the problematic areas separate work on the exterior air was uncontradicted and On review we clearly established her the recover years after the fire and Mr Wood documented the of the home paint sloughing work in 1999 repair following as inspected Ms Morgan s home in 2003 Based mold accumulating conditioning system the communicating decking vent and in off surfaces closet a a of the roof to the rafters hole around possibly causing mold the attic with wood as a sealant to to to was to Based on Ms cross repairs on to not house either from to was when Ms work in October 1999 be be to bigger rafters and and failure to use or replaced than the decking in anchored a tile in crack in kitchen replaced damage starting improper installation the or same to moisture from the quality and type of the roof and in the attic was either opined unsupervised examination Mr Wood admitted that he did the house on properly securing the attic properly supported the defects observed Mr Wood Morgan s by the closet rod not joists to spray crack that needed overflowing air conditioning unit wood to make resurfaced and kill any odor from the fire and smoke that absorbed in the beginning wooden floors to vent near a countertop bifold doors in kitchen that needed show or including reach the cold air of the interior of the house develop failure air conditioner unit in attic kitchen that inspection result of overflow from the air wall of the closet with mold in it nails allowing hot air from the attic his throughout the house hole in the wall in the hallway caused a on problems he observed regarding the repair moldings stained bathroom tub that should have been replaced sealed claimed damages find no support for these arguments At trial Mr Wood testified that he nearly four to right or not substandard damage noted Wood stated 4 performed However on know what the condition of Morgan moved back into it after As for the that the work B G had in the wall in the completed its hallway Mr Well I m not how the hall wall got damaged from the other side unless the bracket that was supporting the shelf and the rod itself when it fell just punched a hole through it quite the mechanism sure because this sheetrock wall where the problem As for the his spraying was ell w the opposite side of the stud from created of the joists and rafters in the attic with testimony regarding whether admitting was on sealant had been a it didn t appear to be sealant he clarified on those surfaces Mr Wood also admitted not when the crack in the kitchen floor had occurred regarding the quality of the wood used sprayed a to by knowing explaining his testimony In repair the fire damage to the roof Mr Wood stated If I was was to replace the roof with like and quality Id asked me to raise it for unless put it back like and if they wanted tongue and groove Id use tongue and someone it going some reason I would they didn t I d use plywood and give them a credit that they could use on something else or they wouldn t pay me that money groove If Following Mr Wood s testimony called to the stand testimony as well and contrary as several exhibits introduced in regarding paint observed of where existing problem was a pre based painted surfaces with a latex authorization from State Farm so that the G to most on G was appeal his conjunction with his testimony on several surfaces in the house began its work it was observed that there previously painted over the oil Mr Jenkins testified that B G sought someone paint had completely strip the surfaces that the paint would adhere of B of Mr Wood in several respects statements the peeling owner Morgan s assertion testify Mr Jenkins testified that when B them to Ms to did contradict the opinion and First Mr Jenkins the properly but the request State Farm would authorize was to sand and before was repaint repainting denied He said the surfaces with latex paint As for other needed repairs noted by State Farm refused to authorize Mr Wood Mr Jenkins testified that replacement of the bi fold 5 doors because it deemed the damage observed to those doors not to be related to the fire He also testified that State Farm would authorize the not resurfacing of the stained tub and tub surround because State Farm had determined that the stained condition of the tub and the tub surround further would existing pre authorize the not the same reason was The house and simply was built in 1955 performed gratuitously for Ms Morgan that were Mr Jenkins testified figured by State Farm and remember that B nailed Ms on a crack we being in it painted shut and Morgan to repairs that not authorized by State B G Farm nor Morgan complained of a crack his was something that was not didn t break the formica but she said she didn t so we ended up G also installed smoke detectors or t many were For instance in the kitchen Ms in her kitchen counter State Farm result of age changing the bathroom chair and door molding for Nevertheless Mr Jenkins stated that there related to the fire a ran a changing her formica He stated unsealed several windows that sub feed breaker panel inside her home control her breakers without having to go to the main to were allow panel located the outside of her home all free of charge When questioned regarding the cracks in the tile floor of the kitchen and defects in the wooden floors noted by Mr Wood and shown in the photos taken by Mr Wood that he had B G Mr Jenkins responded not observed any defects at the time completed its work As for the hole in the hallway wall that speculated but could not say for certain opposite side of the communicating wall T hat is a hole in screw that the caused by the rod in the closet Mr Jenkins testified wall which is looks like lot greater than a the closet that we a hole left from to say a was Mr Wood shelving This butts up to added on That closet Ms Morgan wanted wire shelving in it James Murphy is the wire shelving guru in Baton Rouge and when he goes in to put the wire shelving in he will actually there s a schematic his schematic that he uses depending on the distance of the wall goes up adjusts to it and it lays out all the screw holes Now it s not screw holes are all going 6 to line up on studs He has on the inserts that made are and whatever is stored overweighted sic plastic on it other than insert would make s a foot and As for the work shelving properly but by the picture it because this is in the like it hold the to hallway and to the attic raise the level of her roof to G and was able to move thereby give Ms I hard for s the can imagine t was done move to the air for the r believe that the air conditioning system conditioning unit from the conditioning in the attic unit from Morgan s request to By raising the roof B hallway closet a Morgan the hallway closet she wanted oof Ms decking therefore is by the policy That is of her roof from three a because it looks accommodate Ms give her more space acceptable quality of wood with explained to the air on associated with raising the deck of the roof the decision but me opposite side this large the roof in the attic and Mr Jenkins testified that the decision to downstairs closet on clothing something that is maybe just half wide a on hole a to hold to a not taking seven made to use a were used lesser As Mr Jenkins of like kind and quality sic the attic To offset the cost Morgan s agreement but the moneys correct was to as called raise the pitch to in the items that I aforementioned meaning decking roofing framing Mr Jenkins also testified that in the attic He explained that white residue and used that on was placed in the attic the final and and two was sprayed on the joists and rafters types of sealant one that leaves Mr Jenkins stated that the clear sealant by Mr Woods As for bracing the air conditioning a was unit Mr Jenkins observed that while Mr Wood had noted conditioning unit four but its three sealant G used two that is clear the surfaces noted that the air work one B a was by fours braced This was approved by the city only by a two by four it s not a inspected by the city on the rough two by in and Mr Jenkins further commented that all of the performed including the nailing of the decking to the rafters was inspected approved by the various city building inspectors in the fields of mechanical 7 electrical and framing Copies September 23 1999 placed were of the replaced with contrary actually was a to Mr a a Wood ton the inside air unit was placed conditioning was a unit and that Morgan two at and a unit He not was smaller but Guy Fontenot performed the work the time the work He said Ms so was performed on the outside unit went out on Mr as the on the Morgan never informed him of problems with the air conditioning unit and that she did when the condenser was half ton unit and the new unit change the outside air conditioning unit to do of explained that systems might be incompatible and the newer system could put pressure to as in the hall closet was in the attic replacement Mr Jenkins said that older unit but she declined any conditioning unit that the The old unit Fontenot advised Ms two testimony s bigger unit three unit that new approvmg the work into evidence Mr Jenkins stated that the air was inspections not even call him Instead she called Mr Fontenot directly According to Ms with the outside air conditioning unit inspect the unit She she did not had her work It Morgan in September 2000 she experienced problems was advised have Total Comfort son s was to and called Total Comfort was Air to replace the outside air conditioning unit but Heating and Air perform the work Instead she friend who worked for after that work Heating and an air performed conditioning in either 2001 company or perform 2002 that she the began experiencing problems with overflow from the inside air conditioning system In or considering expert testimony in part the opinion expressed by the trial court may an accept 14 La La 3 24 06 App 1st Cir 114 925 So 2d 1232 05 reject expert The effect and weight expert testimony is within the broad discretion of the trial judge 0059 p or Rao in whole to be v Rao 05 given 927 So 2d 356 365 writ denied 05 2453 The trier of fact may accept 8 or reject any expert s view even of expert witness where in the fact trier s opinion such substitution appears an wan anted La the to point of substituting its by the evidence 5 25 04 874 So La 18 6 whole 2d 838 Cuccia 98 0675 p 8 La 99 1258 as a 99 regarding expert testimony will trial Green 843 2d 31 not be Sciences Center 06 0549 p 8 La In his testimony lists authorized or lists of repairs that repairs Ms performed authOlized Mr by to the court Jenkins State Farm the defects observed work and Ms that Ms even to repairs explained that it Ms Wood s testimony State v discretion in ex a court finding that the reI LSD Health 960 So 2d 67 73 writs not B as responsive Ms to was was in The last list of May 2000 and performed and if a repair were usually something that was explained exist choosing at to Mr was was not not the comi that several of the time B G completed its subsequent problems as not to outlined above we give greater weight We further find that the evidence 9 be being needed G of any findings to Morgan submitted several punch Jenkins Mr Jenkins further by Mr Wood did court s appeal absent G tried Having reviewed the evidence and testimony abuse of the trial by the trial the extent of performing work that to Mr Morgan never informed v 959 So 2d 495 505 Morgan noted what p 5 Contracting Company App 1st Cir 3 9 07 Morgan submitted Jenkins described on Fishbein paid for by State Farm or Corporation 03 2495 The decision reached Mr Jenkins stated that B Morgan s requests and complaints and judgment for that 734 So 2d 820 824 writ denied disturbed denied 07 0730 07 0708 La 6 22 07 not 4 199 abused its broad discretion court K Mart v Barber Brothers App 1st Cir 745 So own common sense supports the trial find no to Mr court s CONCLUSION After before us a thorough review of the record in its contains sufficient evidence Accordingly the judgment is affirmed against the appellant Julia P Morgan AFFIRMED 10 to entirety we support the trial All costs of this find that the record court s appeal judgment are assessed
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
