Samuel K. Eddy, III VS State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 0874 SAMUEL K EDDY III VERSUS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Judgment rendered APR 9 2010 On Appeal from the 22 Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Suit Number 2006 11249 Division G The Honorable Larry J Green Judge Presiding Clint L Pierson Jr Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Covington LA Samuel K Eddy III James R Nieset Jr New Orleans LA Counsel for Defendant Appellee Emily S Morrison Covington LA State Farm Fire Casualty Company Counsel for DefendantAppellee Phillip W Bankston BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND MCCLENDON JJ DOWNING J Samuel K Eddy appeals a judgment dismissing his claims for hurricane damage against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company State Farm Eddy also complains of the underlying Declaratory Judgment entered in State Farm favor s declaring that Eddy entered a stipulation limiting the value of his claims against State Farm For the following reasons we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts and procedural history of this case including assignments of error were fully set forth in our interim opinion ordering that this matter be remanded for further proceedings We also resolved several pertinent issues in that opinion This matter returns to us after we remanded the proceeding to the trial court for a hearing to determine the nature and effect of the Irrevocable Stipulation that Eddy made We ordered that the trial court was to determine whether State Farm knew or had knowledge of the claims asserted in Eddy amended petition s such that State Farm was not misled or deceived by their inclusion in the lawsuit On remand the trial court made several pertinent findings of fact Regarding the tree removal claims only the trial court found that the Irrevocable Stipulation was a judicial confession that was clearly and explicitly limited to the tree removal claims Emphasis added The trial court explained that mending or a altering the lawsuit to change the scope of the tree removal claims would result in State Farm having been misled or deceived According to the trial court the effect of the Irrevocable Stipulation was to eliminate Eddy attorney s fee and penalty claims and federal jurisdiction as issues in the litigation Regarding other claims beyond tree removal however the trial court found differently The trial court found that the evidence supported State Farm s Eddy v State Farm Fire Cas Co 090874 La App I Cir 12 unpublished 09 23 2 and Eddy admissions that they were aware of the other claims at the time the s Irrevocable Stipulation was entered The trial court found that neither party chose to raise the issue of other claims at the time of the remand motion in federal court though either party could have The trial court further found that in acquiescing in the Irrevocable Stipulation State Farm gained the elimination of s Eddy attorney fee and penalty claims while giving up federal court as a venue for this litigation The trial court found that State Farm knowingly chanced that either Eddy would not assert the other claims in State Court or State Farm could preclude them from being asserted The trial court found that there was no evidence introduced that the parties actually agreed that the Irrevocable Stipulation would eliminate the other claims Accordingly the trial court found that State Farm was not misled deceived or duped by the later inclusion of the other claims DISCUSSION In our prior interim opinion ordering a remand we discussed the circumstances in which judicial admissions or stipulations can be amended or revoked See Eddy v State Farm Fire Cas Co 09 0874 at pp 67 where we observed that party litigants are not bound by factual allegations made in the same lawsuit unless his opponent was misled or deceived by those allegations to his detriment as follows In Scoggins v Frederick 98 1815 98 1816 1998 1814 La 1 App Cir 9 744 So 676 681 82 this court made several 99 24 2d pertinent observations about judicial confessions First the court observed that a party is not inexorably bound by factual allegations contained in pleadings from a prior suit See Id Therefore allegations made in the federal suit arguably may not be binding in the state litigation More pertinently here though the Scoggins court continued Other cases have further indicated that a party litigant is not even bound by factual allegations made in the same suit unless his adversary was mislead sic or deceived by those allegations to his detriment Id at 682 3 Here given the trial court finding that State Farm was not misled or s deceived which is not clearly wrong we conclude that Eddy was not barred from amending or supplementing his petition to add other claims as he is entitled to do pursuant to La C arts 1151 and 1155 We agree with the trial court that P the effect of the Irrevocable Stipulation was to waive Eddy claims for attorney s fees and penalties in connection with the tree removal claims Accordingly we find merit in Eddy third assignment of error We will s reverse the judgments of the trial court granting State Farm motion for s declaratory judgment and the subsequent judgment dismissing Eddy amended s claims We pretermit discussion of the remaining assignments of error DECREE For the foregoing reasons we reverse the judgment declaring that Eddy limited the value of his claims against State Farm to 75 and reverse the 00 000 judgment of the trial court dismissing Eddy claims with prejudice We remand s for further proceedings Costs of this appeal are assessed against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company JUDGMENT DECLARATORY REVERSED JUDGMENT REVERSED REMANDED A declaratory judgment action is an ordinary proceeding that must be commenced by petition See Ghassemi v Ghassemi 07 1927 p 8 n I La 1 Cir 10115108 998 So 731 737 n It appears that the trial court l App d 11 may have been treating State Farm Motion for Declaratory Judgment as a reconventional demand which does not s require citation Id Because of our disposition in this matter however we pretern discussion of whether the t motion was in a procedurally correct posture for consideration by the trial court M STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 0874 SAMUEL K EDDY III VERSUS STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY McCLENDON 7 concurs and assigns reasons Under the unique facts of this case I concur with the result reached by i 4the majority based on the trial court finding that State Farm was fully aware of s the other claims and was not misled or deceived by the inclusion of the other claims in the state court action Further as judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine and based on State Farm choice not to raise the issue of the other s claims in response to the remand motion I agree that the doctrine of judicial estoppel need not be applied Additionally while I question the authority of this court to issue an interim opinion I believe the prior opinion which did nothing more than remand for further proceedings was essentially an interim order Thus I concur with the result reached by the majority
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.
