Jody Allemand, Individually and As Tutor of His Minor Child, Emily Allemand and His Wife and Her Mother Renee Allemand VS Discovery Homes, Inc., Bruce Schnexayder, Roberta Taylor Schnexayder and Audubon Indemnity Company and/or Audubon Indemnity Group
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1565 JODY ALLEMAND INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TUTOR OF HIS MINOR CHILD EMILY ALLEMAND AND HIS WIFE RENEE ALLEMAND VERSUS DISCOVERY HOMES INC BRUCE SCHEXNAYDER ROBERTA TAYLOR SCHEXNAYDER AND AUDUBON INDEMNITY COMPANY ANDOR AUDUBON INDEMNITY GROUP DATE OF JUDGMENT MAY 2 8 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 96 DIV A PARISH OF LAFOURCHE 971 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE JOHN E LeBLANC JUDGE Woody Falgoust Rachael Bollinger Carothers Cassie Rodrigue Braud Counsel for Plaintiffs Appellants Thibodaux Louisiana Allemand and Renee Allemand Sidney W Degan III Counsel for Defendant Appellee Audubon Insurance Group Eric D Burt Jody Allemand individually and as tutor of his minor child Emily Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ Disposition REVERSED IN PART AFFIRMED IN PART KUHN J Plaintiffs appellants Jody Allemand individually and in his capacity as tutor of his minor daughter Emily and his wife Renee appeal the trial court s judgment which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant appellant Audubon Insurance Group Audubon Insurance The judgment dismissed pursuant to the New Home Warranty Act NHWA plaintiffs claims for damages for bodily injuries sustained by Emily and their resulting loss of consortium We reverse in part and affirm in part FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the allegations in the petition on March 20 2002 Jody and Renee Allemand signed a contract with Discovery Homes Inc Discovery Homes to construct a new home in Thibodaux The Allemands moved into the newly constructed home on August 19 2002 with their sixday old baby Emily In September 2002 during a tropical storm the interior walls of the home three s bedrooms began to leak saturating the carpets An inspection of the area behind the baseboards of the leaking walls revealed the presence of mold which allegedly was toxic Emily immune system weakened and on January 3 2003 she was s admitted to a hospital where she was diagnosed with the respiratory condition known as RSV On January 26 2003 Emily was admitted to another hospital for symptoms associated with Kawasaki disease The Allemands aver that Emily has suffered personal injuries consisting of toxic mold spore inhalation a weakened immune system RSV Kawasaki disease and associated nasal symptoms which See La R 9 3150 S 3141 2 RSV is short for respiratory syncytial virus 2 were caused as a result of her exposure to toxic mold found behind the baseboards of the bedroom walls that leaked during the tropical storm The Allemands filed this lawsuit seeking damages for breach of contract and negligence from Discovery Homes its president Bruce Schexnayder and his wife Roberta who is the corporate secretary as well as Audubon Insurance the insurer of Discovery Homes On July 8 2004 the parties settled all of the property damage claims and causes of action expressly reserving Jody right as s tutor of Emily to pursue against defendants all her claims and causes of action for bodily injury Audubon Insurance subsequently moved for summary judgment contending that Jody claims for damages as a result of bodily injuries Emily sustained as s well as his and Renee claims for loss of consortium that are derivative of Emily s s injuries are excluded from the builder warranties under the NHWA and s therefore not recoverable as a matter of law After a hearing the trial court agreed and dismissed Audubon Insurance from the lawsuit The Allemands lodged this appeal DISCUSSION Summary Judgment Law The summary judgment procedure is expressly favored in the law and is designed to secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of every action except those disallowed by Article 969 La C art 966A P 2 Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories admissions on file and affidavits if any show that there is no genuine issue as to 3 material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law La P C art 966B The initial burden of proof is on the moving party However if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment the movant burden on the motion does not s require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party claim action or s defense but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party claim action or s defense Thereafter if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial there is no genuine issue of material fact La C art 966C Once the P 2 motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party the failure of the non moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion Babin v WinnDixie Louisiana Inc 000078 p 4 La 6 764 So 37 40 see La C art 967B 00 30 2d P On appeal summary judgments are reviewed de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court consideration of whether summary judgment is s appropriate An appellate court thus asks the same questions as does the trial court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Guardia v Lakeview Regional Medical Ctn 20081369 p 3 La App lst Cir 5 13 So 625 627 Because it is the applicable substantive 09 8 3d law that determines materiality whether a particular fact in dispute is material 4 for summary judgment purposes can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case Id 2008 1369 at p 4 13 So at 628 2d NHWA The NHWA was originally enacted in 1986 for the purpose stated in La S 3141 R 9 The legislature finds a need to promote commerce in Louisiana by providing clear concise and mandatory warranties for the purchasers and occupants of new homes in Louisiana and by providing for the use of homeowners insurance as additional protection for the public against defects in the construction of new homes This need can be met by providing a warranty for a new home purchaser defining the responsibility of the builder to that purchaser and subsequent purchasers during the warranty periods provided herein The warranty which is mandatory in most cases shall apply whether or not building code regulations are in effect in the location of the structure thereby promoting uniformity of defined building standards Additionally all provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any defect although there is no building standard directly regulating the defective workmanship or materials The NHWA minimum required warranties set forth in La R 9 s S 3144 are mandatory and cannot be waived by the owner or reduced by the builder See La R 9 Barnett v Watkins 2006 2442 p 10 La App 1st Cir S 3144C 07 19 9 970 So 1028 1034 writ denied 2007 2066 La 12 970 2d 07 14 2d So 537 And the NHWA provides the exclusive remedies warranties and peremptive periods as between a builder and an owner relative to home construction no other provisions of law relative to warranties and redhibitory vices and defects shall apply See La R 9 Barnett 20062442 at p 10 S 3150 970 So at 1034 2d Because the parties settled their property damage claims and causes of action that portion of the minimum required warranties ofLa R 9 is not S 3144A 5 before us La R 9 states that unless the parties otherwise agree in S 3144B 14 writing the builder warranty excludes bodily injury It is this exclusion to the s NHWA that Audubon Insurance relies on to assert that because Discovery Homes was the builder and since under La R 9the NHWA provides the exclusive S 3150 remedies available between builders and owners relative to home construction the Allemands are not entitled to recovery for Emily bodily injuries s According to the applicable version of La R 9 an owner S 3143 6 means the initial purchaser of a home and any of his successors in title to a home during the time the warranties provided under the NHWA are in effect The record establishes that the owners of the new construction are Jody and Renee not Emily Nothing in the record shows that Emily is either the initial purchaser of the home or a successor in title of Jody and Renee As such she is not an owner and therefore cannot be limited to the exclusive remedies between a builder and an owner relative to home construction provided by the NHWA Because Emily is outside the scope of the NHWA she may pursue her claims for bodily injury under any applicable theory of recovery including recovery in tort provided under La C art 2315 Thus because Audubon Insurance failed to demonstrate it was entitled to judgment as matter of law on the issue of whether the NHWA applied to the claims for bodily injury sustained by Emily the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing Jody s claims as tutor on behalf of Emily We turn now to the loss of consortium damages asserted by Jody and Renee 3 We note that by 2003 La Acts No 333 1 the legislature amended La R 9 and S 3143 6 expanded the definition of owner to include heirs invitees or assigns 6 in their individual capacities In claiming entitlement to loss of consortium as a result of Emily bodily injuries Jody and Renee obviously rely on the derivative s nature of such damages Because loss of consortium is derivative of the primary s victim injuries and not a separate bodily injury the loss of consortium claim is for damage to the relationship with a living person See Ferrell v Fireman s Fund Ins Co 96 3028 La 7 696 So 569 574 see also William E 97 1 2d Crawford Developments in the Law 1993 1994 55 La L Rev 657 658 1995 The claim for loss of consortium is beyond question a cause of action separate from any claim of the primary victim The loss of consortium claim is derivative only in the sense that the damages suffered by the claimants flow from damage to their relationship with the primary tort victim The claim however is not the assertion of the primary victim cause of action itself as is the case with a s survival action Landry v Avondale Indus Inc 2003 0719 p 9 La 12 03 3 864 So 117 2d 126 Accordingly claims for loss of consortium clearly compensate the beneficiaries for their own damages as a result of their relationship with the victim albeit separate and distinct from the victim injuries s See Landry 2003 0719 at p 10 864 So at 126 see also Leray v Nissan Motor 2d Corp in U 2005 2051 p 6 La App 1st Cir 11 So 707 711 A S 950 06 32d compromise agreement signed by minor passenger could not act to waive her parents rights or causes of action for loss of consortium damages which were their separate claims Since the loss of consortium damages Jody and Renee suffered are separate and distinct claims from those of Emily as the owners of the new s construction they are subject to the builder warranty in La R 9 s S 3144B 7 Barnett 20062442 at p 10 970 So at 1034 2d According to La R S 8excluded from the builder warranty is floss or damage which does 3144B 9 s not constitute a defect in the construction of the home by the builder Because claims for loss of consortium are losses or damages that do not constitute defects in the construction of the home by the builder they are excluded from the swarranty under the NHWA See Barnett 20062442 at p 16 970 So builder 2d at 1038 Jody and Renee point out that under the contract they entered into with Discovery Homes they were promised perfection thereby obviating an exclusive application of the NHWA to their claims Because the NHWA provides minimum required warranties it does not prohibit a builder from agreeing to increase rather than reduce his warranties to the owner of a new home Thus a builder may contractually assume greater obligations or warranties than those afforded by the NHWA and under those circumstances the owner presumably has a separate cause of action based on the breach of those specific contract provisions Barnett 20062442 at p 12 970 2d So at 1035 The builder contract that Jody and Renee entered into with Discovery s Homes stated that the builder agreed to build finish and deliver in a perfect and thoroughly workmanlike manner a residence But the Allemands have cited and we have found nothing in the contract which stipulates that the builder assumed liability for floss or damage which does not constitute a defect in the construction of the home by the builder Clearly the reference to perfect relates to the workmanlike manner in which the builder agreed to build finish and PI deliver the residence Any deficiencies in workmanship and thus any claim for the builder to deliver a residence in a perfect workmanlike manner were necessarily addressed within the settlement of all property damage claims and causes of action between Jody and Renee and all defendants Because the individual claims of Jody and Renee for loss of consortium were not within the scope of the warranty afforded them by the NHWA and because Discovery Homes did not contractually assume liability for any losses or damages which do not constitute a defect in the construction of their home Audubon Insurance proved that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the loss of consortium claims Accordingly the trial court correctly granted summary judgment and dismissed the claims for loss of consortium by Jody and Renee in their individual capacities DECREE For these reasons the trial court judgment is reversed insofar as it s dismisses the claims asserted by Jody Allemand in his capacity as tutor of his minor daughter Emily for her bodily injuries The dismissal of the loss of consortium claims by Jody and Renee Allemand in their respective individual capacities is affirmed Appeal costs are assessed onehalf to defendant appellee Audubon Insurance Group and onehalf to plaintiffs appellants Jody and Renee Allemand in their individual capacities REVERSED IN PART AFFIRMED IN PART 4 It was undisputed for purposes of summary judgment that as Discovery Homes insurer Audubon Insurance provided coverage for the Allemands See La R 22 providing for S 1269B a direct action by claimants against the insurer of an alleged tortfeasor 9
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.
