EUDORO TENORIO, MARIA C. TENORIO AND CHRISTINA DIERKER, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, RICARDO H. TENORIO AND ANGELICA M. TENORIO Vs. AUTOMOTIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
EUDORO TENORIO, MARIA C. TENORIO AND CHRISTINA DIERKER, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, RICARDO H. TENORIO AND ANGELICA M. TENORIO * NO. 2004-CA-0393 * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS * AUTOMOTIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ET AL. * ******* MURRAY, J., CONCURS AND ASSIGNS REASONS I write separately to further elaborate upon DOTD’s exception of prescription, which I agree was properly denied by the district court. DOTD’s exception was based upon La. R.S. 49:112, which provides that no claim or debt against the state shall be paid by the treasurer after the lapse of ten years from the happening of the event upon which the claim is based. I agree with the plaintiffs that this statute does not apply to DOTD, which is a state agency, under the circumstances of the instant case. Because this statute is inapplicable, and because the plaintiffs’ suit was filed within the prescriptive period applicable to a private-person defendant, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that La. R.S. 13:5108 mandates denial of the exception in the instant case. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
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.
