GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE VERSUS RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, ET AL. Vs.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 22-256 consolidated with CA 22-257 ALI KAZAN, ET AL. VERSUS RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, ET AL. consolidated with GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE VERSUS RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 263,393 C/W 264,346 HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** BILLY H. EZELL JUDGE ********** Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy H. Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges. APPEALS BY VITTHAL, LLC DISMISSED AS MOOT. Sidney Wallis Degan, III James Albert Rowell Travis Louis Bourgeois Jena W. Smith Degan, Blanchard & Nash 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2600 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 529-3333 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Great Lakes Insurance SE Kevin R Derham Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister, Weinstock & Bogart 3838 North Causeway Boulevard, #2900 Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 832-3700 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Great Lakes Insurance SE Brian W. Harrell Attorney at Law 5555 Hilton Avenue, # 620 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 (225) 610-1110 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Great Lakes Insurance SE Charles Eustace Leche Kari M. Rosamond Deutsch Kerrigan LLP 755 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 593-0790 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Ketan Patel Vitthal, LLC Bryce Jefferson Denny Attorney At Law 209 Polk Street Mansfield, LA 71052 (318) 871-5007 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Ketan Patel Vitthal, LLC Henry Minor Pipes Catherine Fornias Giarrusso Pipes, Miles, Beckman Kelsey L. Meeks 1100 Poydras Street, #1800 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 322-7070 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Liberty Insurance Company Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. W. Jay Luneau Luneau Law Firm 5208 Jackson Street Extension, Suite A Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 445-6581 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Ali Kazan individually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan Ebony Medlin indivdually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan Scott J. Chafin, Jr. Brett P. Fenasci Gregorio, Chafin, Johnson 9284 Linwood Avenue Shreveport, LA 71106 (318) 865-8680 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEE: Ali Kazan individually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan Ebony Medlin indivdually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan Christian Brownell Bogart Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister, Weinstock & Bogart 3838 North Causeway Boulevard, #2900 Metairie, LA 70002 (504) 832-3700 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. Red Lion Hotels Corporation EZELL, Judge. On April 25, 2022, this court ordered Appellant, Vitthal, LLC (Vitthal), to show cause by brief only, why the appeals should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory order. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss the appeals. The instant case involves a wrongful death and survival action which PlaintiffsAppellees, Ali Kazan and Ebony Medlin, have filed individually and on behalf of their now-deceased daughter, Lia Kazan, who was abducted/kidnapped from the America’s Best Value Inn and ultimately killed. Plaintiffs have sued various defendants, including Vitthal, which owns and operates the America’s Best Value Inn, and Great Lakes Insurance SE, Vitthal’s liability insurer. The motel’s franchisors, Red Lion Hotels Corporation and Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc., and their insurers, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation, were also named as party defendants; however, they have settled with Plaintiffs. Vitthal filed a motion in limine, seeking to have the trial court require the jury to assess and compare the fault of Anthony Murray, the deceased kidnapper, who is not a party to the lawsuit. A hearing on the motion was held on November 5, 2021, and the trial court denied Vitthal’s motion in a written judgment on November 8, 2021. Then, on November 30, 2021, the trial court signed an “Order and Judgment Regarding Proceedings on November 5, 2021”, wherein the court confirmed its bench rulings from November 5, 2021, denying Vitthal’s motion in limine concerning the comparative fault of Anthony Murray. Also, pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B), the trial court designated the ruling as a final judgment appropriate for appeal. Vitthal sought supervisory review of the trial court’s November 8, 2021 judgment, and this court ruled on February 22, 2022, as follows: WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY. Although Plaintiffs-Respondents, Ali Kazan and Ebony Medlin, maintain that the ruling in Veazey, 851 So.2d 943 survives the 1996 amendments to La.Civ.Code arts. 2323 and 2324, this court has held that the Veazey case has been superseded by the 1996 amendments. See Turner v. Shop Rite, Inc., 14-315 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/14), 149 So.3d 427, writ denied, 142302 (La. 1/23/15), 159 So.3d 1058. Because La.Civ.Code art. 2323, as amended, expressly provides that “[i]n any action for damages where a person suffers injury, death, or loss, the degree or percentage of fault of all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined . . . ”, we find that the trial court erred when it denied the motion in limine whereby Relator sought to have the jury be allowed to assess and apportion fault to the intentional tortfeasor in the instant case. Therefore, we hereby reverse the trial court and render judgment granting Relator’s motion in limine. Kazan v. Red Lion Hotels Corp., an unpublished opinion bearing docket number 21751 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/22/22). While the matter was pending before this court on supervisory writ, Vitthal sought appeals of the November 30, 2021 ruling. Upon the lodging of the appeals in this court, on April 25, 2022, we issued a rule to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling. In Vitthal’s response to the rule, it explains that it has pursued the instant appeals only as a precautionary exercise in the event a writ, appeal, or other adverse action regarding this court’s February 22, 2022 ruling might be taken by Plaintiffs. Vitthal concludes that since the issue in the instant appeals has been decided by this court, it suggests that these appeals may be appropriate for summary disposition under Rule 2-11.3 of the Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal. We find that the discussion of whether the appeals should be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling is pretermitted as the issue on appeal is now moot. This court has ruled on the identical issue set forth in the trial court’s November 8, 2021 judgment, and thus, all issues in the present appeals have already been decided. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeals as moot. APPEALS BY VITTHAL, LLC DISMISSED AS MOOT. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3. 2

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.