Linda Williams and Huston Williams VS Derek Hendry, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 2379 LINDA WILLIAMS AND HUSTON WILLIAMS VERSUS DEREK HENDRY STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered September 21 2012 On Appeal from the 19 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 579 807 The Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Presiding Gail N McKay Attorney for Appellants Baton Rouge Louisiana Linda Williams and Huston Williams H Minor Pipes III Attorneys for Appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Susan M Rogge New Orleans Louisiana BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND GAIDRY JJ J 1Cu11 CG7 2 v J AOOL CARTER C J Linda Williams and Huston Williams Plaintiffs appeal an adverse partial summary judgment regarding UM coverage limits on both their Auto policy and an umbrella policy in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company Liberty Mutual finding 1 that plaintiffs claims against Liberty Mutual are limited to UM coverage limits of 100 per person 300 per accident 2 that the Personal 000 000 Catastrophe Liability Policy PCLP is not triggered until plaintiffs damages exceed the required 250 retained limit required in the PCLP plus the limits 000 of the tortfeasor insurance and 3 that the plaintiffs have no coverage for s damages between the 100 per person UM limit of the Auto policy and the 000 000 250 retained limit of the PCLP Because we conclude the judgment was improperly certified as final we dismiss the appeal FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident The plaintiffs settled and dismissed their claims against the other driver and his insurer Plaintiffs claims against Liberty Mutual which issued UM coverage for both the Auto and umbrella policy remain Liberty Mutual filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment claiming that the UM coverage it provided to the plaintiffs is limited to 100 per person and 000 that the PCLP it issued to the plaintiffs is not triggered until the plaintiffs damages exceed the required 250 retained limit in the umbrella policy plus the limits 000 of the tortfeasor sinsurance Therefore Liberty Mutual sought a judgment that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount between the 100 UM limit 000 and the 250 retained limit of the PCLP 000 2 The trial court granted Liberty Mutual motion for partial s judgment finding that the Underinsured Uninsured Motorist summary Bodily Injury Coverage Form executed by insured Huston Williams selected 100 of UM 000 coverage rather than the Auto policy liability limit of 250 000 The trial court designated the judgment as final and expressly determined that there was no just reason for delay The reasons given by the trial court for designating the judgment as final were the interest ofjudicial economy fairness and efficiency to all parties considering the need for the parties to know now rather than after a trial on the merits the extent of UM coverage available under the two policies at issue Plaintiffs now appeal DISCUSSION Appellate courts have the duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte even when the parties do not raise the issue Barnett v Watkins 06 2442 La App 1 Cir 9 970 So 2d 1 1 writ denied 07 2066 La 07 1 028 032 07 4 1 12 970 So 2d 537 Therefore this court must determine if this partial summary judgment is properly appealable Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 authorizes the appeal of a partial summary judgment as to one or more but less than all of the claims demands issues or theories presented where the judgment is designated as a final judgment by the trial court after a determination that there is no just reason for delay A partial summary judgment rendered pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article E 966 may be immediately appealed during an ongoing litigation only if it has been properly designated as a final judgment by the trial court pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 B A trial s court certification of a partial judgment as final does not make the judgment tj immediately appealable Marquez v Jack Ussery Const 06 1852 La App 1 Cir 07 8 6 964 So 2d 1045 1048 writ denied 07 1404 La 10 965 So 2d 07 12 400 The appellate jurisdiction of this court extends to final judgments La Code Civ Proc Ann art 2083 A final judgment pursuant to Louisiana law is one which determines the merits of the controversy in whole or in part La Code Civ Proc Ann art 1841 A judgment rendered pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 must be sufficiently final in that it disposes of the claim or dispute in regard to which the judgment is rendered Marquez 964 So 2d at 1048 Since the trial court gave reasons for certifying the partial motion for summary judgment as immediately appealable we review the certification applying the abuse of discretion standard See R Messinger Inc v Rosenblum J 04 1664 La 3894 So 2d 1113 1122 05 2 In considering whether a judgment is properly designated as final pursuant to Article 1915 a court must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved Messinger 894 So 2d at 1122 Factors to be considered by a trial court although not exclusive when determining whether a partial judgment should be certified as appealable include 1 the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims 2 the possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the trial court 3 the possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time and 4 miscellaneous factors such as delay economic and solvency considerations shortening the time of trial frivolity of competing claims expense and the like Nevertheless the overriding inquiry for the trial court is whether there is no just reason for the delay Messinger 894 So 2d at 1 122 23 11 Applying these precepts we find the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the partial summary judgment as a final judgment pursuant to Article B 1915 There are many unadjudicated claims to be resolved such as the amount of plaintiffs damages whether any of those damages fall within the parameters of the gap created by the two policies the amount of the tortfeasor policy the s amount paid by the tortfeasor and whether Liberty Mutual is ultimately liable Should the plaintiffs be unable to prove damages above 100 a decision of 000 this court would be mooted There is no shortening of the trial as the plaintiffs will still have to put on the same evidence whether the judgment is affirmed or reversed Therefore an appeal at this time is not in the interest of judicial economy The judgment does not terminate any of the parties claims nor does it dismiss any party See Joseph v Ratcliff 10 1342 La App 1 Cir 3 63 11 25 So 3d 220 224 partial summary judgment which did not terminate any party s claims or dismiss any party held to be nonappealable The judgment merely adjudicates the limit of the UM coverage and the amount which triggers the PCLP The judgment recognizes a gap in the coverage amounts of the two policies The judgment determines the extent of coverage but not the liability of Liberty Mutual or the damages of plaintiffs All the evidence presented at the trial court will be the same regardless if the trial court decision is affirmed or not The determination of UM coverage of the Auto policy and the PCLP does not shorten the length of trial narrow the scope of evidence to be presented at trial or decrease the costs of litigation Should the plaintiffs damages be below 000 100 the question of the applicable limits would become moot obviating the need for appellate review There is nothing in the record that suggests that the 61 appeal of the partial summary judgment at this stage of the proceedings best serves the needs of the parties or that other compelling circumstances exist that would make a delay in appellate review unjust The judgment only determines the extent of coverage below a certain amount of damages and above a certain amount of damages Allowing an immediate appeal from a judgment finding that the defendant is responsible for some but not all of the damages or conversely that the plaintiffs may collect some but not all of their damages only serves to encourage piecemeal adjudication and appeals causing delay and judicial inefficiency See Doyle v Mitsubishi Motor Sales ofAmerica Inc 990459 La App 1 Cir 3 764 So 2d 1041 1047 writ denied 00 1265 La 6 00 31 00 16 765 So 2d 338 The overriding inquiry is whether there is no just reason for delay The trial court abused its discretion in finding no just reason for delay The judgment of the trial court states that the parties need to know now the extent of coverage available However the judgment at issue does not end the litigation but only results in the matter being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings A judgment rendered pursuant to Article 1915 must be sufficiently final in that it disposes of the claim or dispute in regard to which the judgment is entered So 2d at 1047 See Doyle 764 As the summary judgment appealed does not dispose of the Williams claim against Liberty Mutual but just decides the preliminary issue of coverage we find that the trial court improperly designated the matter as a final judgment See Doyle 764 So 2d at 1047 Cutrer v Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualtylns Co 11 1860 La App 1 Cir 5WL 1550544 2012 12 2 For the foregoing reasons we dismiss the appeal and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the view expressed herein Because this partial R summary judgment does not constitute a final judgment for the purposes of appeal it may be revised by the trial court at any time prior to the rendition of the judgment adjudicating all issues and claims La Code Civ Proc art 1915 2 B Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellants Linda Williams and Huston Williams APPEAL DISMISSED 7
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.
