Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog
In cases involving multiple defendants, courts are frequently asked to dismiss some or all of the parties because no set of facts can allow a case to proceed. Defendants will point the finger at their counterparts in hopes of securing a dismissal for themselves. However, the dismissal of even just one defendant can mean the loss of significant compensation for the party bringing the lawsuit. In a recent injury case out of Baton Rouge, a family was able to get their day court despite the best efforts of their opponent.
Calandra Carr and her two children, Louis Carr, Jr., and Ciara Carr, were all riding in their van when they were in line to use the Geaux Clean Express Car Wash behind Jeffrey Dykes. Anthony Amedee was in front of Mr. Dykes’ vehicle when Mr. Amedee’s vehicle moved backward, striking Mr. Dykes vehicle, which in turn, hit the Carr’s van. This collision caused injuries, damages, and losses, which Carr’s argument caused because Mr. Amedee failed to maintain proper vehicle control. The Carr’s also claimed that Geaux Clean failed to maintain the car wash properly and that their negligence was also a cause of the collision.
The Carrs filed a lawsuit against Anthony Amedee and his liability insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”), Geaux Clean Express Car Wash (“Geaux Clean”) and its insurer, Ohio Security, and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”) as the Carrs’ UM insurers.
In response, Ohio Security filed a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law because they argued that the Carrs were incapable of proving that Geaux Clean’s carelessness caused their injuries. The Carrs argued against summary judgment because there were many unresolved questions regarding Geaux Clean’s liability, including conflicting testimony that required a determination based on witness credibility. However, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the Carrs’ claims with prejudice.
A summary judgment motion is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Granting a summary judgment motion allows the court to avoid a full-scale trial. See All Crane Rental of Georgia, Inc. v. Vincent, 47 So.3d 1024 (La. Ct. App. 2010). If a court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court will grant the motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3).
The documents that can be submitted in opposition to or in support of a motion for summary judgment are restricted to affidavits, memoranda, pleadings, certified medical records, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and written stipulations. See La C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4). When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the court cannot make credibility decisions because it must assume that all witnesses are credible. See Monterrey Center, LLC v. Ed.ucation Partners, Inc., 5 So.3d 225 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed the deposition testimony and found varying accounts of the collision. The First Circuit disagreed that summary judgment was appropriate in this case because the District Court cannot determine credibility based on a motion. The evidence presented raised genuine issues of material fact that must be determined by a fact finder and not a court.
The First Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Carr’s case underscores the importance of hiring an excellent attorney who understands the standards associated with summary judgment motions. A good attorney can help a court see where there are disputed facts in a case and keep a case from being dismissed prematurely.
Additional Sources: Carr v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Louisiana Summary Judgement: Florida Boulevard Car Accident Injury Claims Reinstated After Appeal of Summary Judgment