Legal Definitions

Duck Dynasty Prevails In Beverage Dispute Because of Ambiguous Contractual Term

Published on: July 25, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

ducks_duck_duckling_bird-scaled Even celebrities must deal with the often mundane task of negotiating and signing contracts. Although it can be tempting to sign a contract without reading it in depth or consulting with a lawyer, this case illustrates the importance of understanding every term and condition of a contract because of the complexities that can arise if there are ambiguous terms.

Duck Commander Inc. is owned by the Robertson family, who starred in the reality TV show Duck Dynasty. Initially, they made and sold duck calls and other related equipment. However, they ventured into the beverage industry partly because one of the family members, Si Robertson, liked iced tea. Subsequently, Chinook USA (a company that manufactures bottles and sells ready-to-drink beverages) and Duck Commander entered into a Licensing Agreement where Chinook would distribute Duck Commander branded iced tea.

After Duck Commander signed the agreement with Chinook, Duck Commander signed two other contracts involving beverage sales. The first contract was with Go-Time Energy, where Go-Time Energy had the three-year exclusive right to manufacture, license, and sell Duck Commander-branded energy shots. Duck Commander also agreed with Checkered Flag to sell Duck Commander-branded vitamin water.

Double Recovery in Helicopter Injury Case?

Published on: July 24, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

helicopter_adac_rescue_helicopter-scaled If you do a favor for your boss outside of work and are injured, can you still sue for workers’ compensation benefits? This is a complex question dependent on the facts of a case. Workers’ compensation is only available for injuries suffered during employment. If the court finds that the favor was outside the scope of employment, an injured employee may only recover tort damages. In the following case, the appellate court reversed a finding of workers’ compensation in favor of tort liability. In this case, the injured worker fought against a reduction of award to offset the workers’ compensation benefits already paid to the plaintiff.

LaFayette truck driver Tommie Hebert was employed by Industrial Helicopters, Inc. as a commercial fuel transporter for nearly 30 years. Industrial Helicopters primarily served as an aerial herbicide application company. The owner of Industrial Helicopters also owned Game Management, Inc. Game Management leased hunting land and operated deer tracking and capturing surveys. His boss’s son asked Herbert to work as a deer netter on a Game Management helicopter survey. During the survey, Herbert fell from the helicopter to the ground and was seriously injured. The status of workers’ compensation became muddled because of the dual businesses.

Hebert was originally granted workers’ compensation benefits because he was found to be within the scope of his job at Industrial Helicopters when he fell. On appeal, Hebert was conversely found to be outside the scope of employment during the deer netting. Industrial Helicopters was only liable for tort damages based on this finding. Hebert additionally motioned for his court costs to be paid by the defendant.

Patient’s Early Post-Operative Dismissal Causes Medical Expert Dilemma

Published on: July 23, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

aircraft_carrier_infirmary_hospital-scaled Medical malpractice claims are not always limited to instances during treatment or surgery and may, as one young patient argued, include failures that occur afterward or post-operatively.

Justin Thomas, an eighteen-year-old, aspiring armed serviceman, underwent a right shoulder arthroscopy at Lafayette Surgicare to repair his repeated rotator cuff dislocations. The surgery was considered an outpatient procedure that Thomas’s surgeon, Dr. Otis Drew (Dr. Drew), performed beginning just before 9:00 AM on July 1, 2013, and completed around 11:00 AM the same day. Before and after the surgery, Thomas was given significant anesthesia and medication. By 1:50 PM that afternoon, Thomas was discharged into the care of his parents. Less than six hours later, after Thomas’s mom gave him a prescribed dose of oxycodone, he fell unconscious and was unresponsive to Narcan, so an ambulance arrived at Thomas’ parents’ home taking him back to the hospital, where he lay in a coma for five days. As a result, Thomas experienced brain damage and lost the use of the left side of his body.

In May 2016, a medical review board determined that despite Thomas’s injury, the medical staff, including Dr. Drew, met the required standard of care. Nevertheless, three months later, Thomas filed a lawsuit against Dr. Drew, the anesthesiologist, Lafayette Surgicare, Lafayette Surgery Center, and The Regions Health System of Acadiana. His complaint alleged that he was released too early post-operatively and prescribed extensive anesthesia and heavy narcotic medication that induced him into a coma. In response, Dr. Drew filed a summary judgment motion that the trial court, Fifteenth Judicial District Court Parish of Lafayette, granted, dismissing Thomas’s claims. Thomas appealed to Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Third Circuit), arguing that the trial court erred in finding that his expert affidavit was inadmissible and did not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Rules on Reasonableness of Forum Selection Clause

Published on: July 21, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

detail_forum_romanum_rome-scaled Most of us get into contracts, not fully understanding all the ins and outs of what we are signing. Similarly, the multiple provisions that can slither their way into contracts can include things like forum selection clauses which can be easily overlooked. But when a lawsuit erupts, can you argue a provision isn’t applicable? The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addresses this question in the following case.

Al Copeland Investments, L.L.C. owned a food manufacturing facility in Louisiana. In October and December of 2015, there was some property damage to the facility, and they submitted a reimbursement claim under an insurance policy. Their insurance was held with First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”). They denied this claim, and AI Copeland sued in the Eastern District of Louisiana, believing they were entitled to recover from the costs and damages of the property. First Specialty asked the court to dismiss the case because the policies forum selection clause requires litigation in New York State court, not Louisiana.

A forum selection clause is a section in a contract that states how all disputes must be litigated in a specific court in a jurisdiction that the parties agreed to.

The Impact of Timeliness in the Legal Field

Published on: July 20, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

time_clock_movement_motion-1-scaled Timing. We all know it’s important, but how important is it in the legal field? Properly filing documents, adhering to deadlines, and raising legal issues within specific timeframes can significantly impact the outcome of a case. In the following case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal looks to the issue of timeliness in the legal field and whether the cause of actions has matured enough to be “ripe” for judicial determination.

Bayou Orthotic and Prosthetics Center, L.L.C. (“Bayou”) owned and operated a medical business that provides medical prostheses and relative equipment. In 2016, Leroy Davis needed an above-the-knee prosthetic from a prior accident, which Bayou provided. Morris Bart was representing Davis for his injuries and asked Bayou for medical treatment, providing that he would protect Bayou’s medical charges for around $29,000. Bayou treated Davis for almost ten years, racking up expenses to around $126,000.

Bart never paid, and Bayou sued. Bart filed an exception of prematurity because the commitment to pay Bayou depended on a suspensive condition – if the payment to Bart of settlement proceeds. This did not happen. Bayou disagreed and believed the agreement was based on a term, not a suspensive condition, and therefore, the payment from Bart had to have been paid within a reasonable period.

Analysis of Insurance Coverage Exclusion in a Complex Liability Case

Published on: July 19, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

news_stock_newspaper_glasses-scaled In the realm of insurance coverage disputes, a recent case has brought attention to the application of policy exclusions and their impact on the availability of coverage. Daphne Richardson Valteau took legal action after her father had been stabbed to death on premises owned by The Terraces Limited Partnership (“The Terraces”). The Terraces was managed by Latter & Blum Property Management, Inc. (“Latter & Blum”), while another company, Patriot Protection Agency, Inc. (“Patriot”), had been handling the security services for The Terraces.

Patriot’s liability insurance was through First Mercury Insurance Company (“First Mercury”), First Mercury moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Valteau’s claims. First Mercury argued that the exclusions provided in Patriot’s insurance policy regarding intentional and criminal acts were valid and enforceable. After its motion was denied, First Mercury appealed, petitioning for a writ of certiorari from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

After reviewing the contractual language of Patriot’s insurance policy with First Mercury, specifically the “Exclusion of Specific Work” provision, the Appeals Court identified various issues that need to be addressed before summary judgment could be ruled on, as well as a major distinction from precedent Louisiana case law. The Court distinguished this case based on how the exclusionary language essentially provided no coverage to Patriot if the incident occurred on a property “established for the purpose of providing subsidized housing….”

Timely Filings and the Road to Justice: The Implications of Abandonment in Civil Litigation

Published on: July 17, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

number_three_three_wood-scaled Navigating the intricacies of civil litigation requires strict adherence to procedural rules, as the failure to meet deadlines or follow the correct timeline can result in serious consequences for plaintiffs seeking justice. In the case of Michael Neal Rollins, an inmate who filed a lawsuit against the State of Louisiana, Louis Ackal, Sheriff of Iberia Parish, and the Corrections Corporation of America, the impact of missed deadlines and abandoned filings became evident. Rollins alleged physical abuse during his transportation back to the Iberia Parish Jail, but his case was ultimately dismissed due to abandonment. This instance highlights the critical importance of timely and diligent filings within the legal system, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to navigate the complex procedural landscape to have their claims heard.

Rollins filed a lawsuit against the State of Louisiana, Louis Ackal, Sheriff of Iberia Parish, and the Corrections Corporation of America. Rollins was an inmate incarcerated at the Iberia Parish Jail in New Iberia. In 2008, Rollins was returned to the Iberia Parish Jail from prison in Winn Parish, having been evacuated there during Hurricane Gustav. After his subsequent release, Rollins filed his suit against the State of Louisiana in 2009 for injuries he suffered while transporting back to the Iberia Parish Jail from Winn Parish. Rollins alleged that officers physically abused him on the bus and in the Iberia Parish Jail parking lot.

Over seven years later, in 2017, the State of Louisiana filed a Motion to Dismiss the suit on the grounds of abandonment. The state claimed that there had been no filings or steps taken to proceed with the case since 2014. The plaintiff filed a counter-motion, alleging that it had filed a motion requesting discovery materials from the defense. The defendants argued that one of the defendants, Sheriff Louis Ackal, never received these requests. The district court ruled in favor of the defense, stating that failure to serve the request to all the defendants negates it as a step in prosecuting the action. Thus the district court dismissed the case in its decision, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Medical Deaths Aren’t Always Medical Malpractice

Published on: July 14, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

medical_patch_association_pills-scaled When a patient suffers from harm done to them by the negligence of a health care provider, he may be a victim of medical malpractice. A recent Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case explained why it is not always a case of medical malpractice when an avoidable medical death occurs.

Andrew Moonan fell at home and was taken by ambulance to the emergency room, where an x-ray showed two fractured ribs. Several days after being released, Moonan called Dr. Monte, his primary care doctor, after hours, requesting he return to the hospital. A couple of days later, he collapsed and was taken to the hospital, where he died due to a pulmonary embolism. His wife and son filed a complaint for medical malpractice against Dr. Monte with the Louisiana Division of Administration. The panel unanimously determined Dr. Monte was not negligent and did not breach his standard of care with Moonan.

The Moonans filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Monte and his insurer, claiming Dr. Monte breached the standard of care in several ways, including failing to inform Moonan of the risks associated with staying in bed all day and the risk of a pulmonary embolism, allowing his medial technologist to tell Moonan to get up and walk since his condition was not serious, and failing to tell Moonan to return to the emergency room. The jury reached a unanimous verdict in favor of Dr. Monte, and the Moonans filed a motion for a new trial which the trial court denied. The Moonans appealed, claiming the trial judge erred in allowing Dr. Diechmann to testify as an expert because it violated the court’s Scheduling Order, and the judge erred in redacting two parts of the wife’s timeline because it contained crucial information about the credibility of the parties.

Demonstrating Injuries to Children in Auto Accidents: Understanding the Requirements and Legal Proceedings

Published on: July 13, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

children_s_children_asian-scaled When accidents involve children, gathering factual information regarding their physical health becomes even more crucial for building a solid case. This is particularly evident in a vehicle collision that took place in Lafayette, Louisiana. The case highlights the specific requirements for demonstrating injuries to children in an auto accident and what is and isn’t required to prove injuries to a child.

On January 19, 2015, Bradley Quoyer was backing out of a driveway onto a street in Lafayette, Louisiana, when his vehicle collided with the rear passenger side of Neosha Robertson’s vehicle. At the time of the collision, Ms. Robertson’s two minor children were in the back seat. She filed a lawsuit against the driver, Clement Bradley Quoyeser, and his insurance company on behalf of herself and her children, claiming that they both suffered injuries.

Quoyer filed a motion asking that the children be dismissed from the lawsuit, and the trial Court granted this motion. Robertson disagreed with the ruling and therefore appealed.

Navigating the Waters of Maritime Contracts: An Indemnity Puzzle

Published on: July 11, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

vessel_boat_mar_1201342-scaled In contractual agreements, the validity of indemnity provisions can become a subject of contention between parties. But what happens when determining a contract’s maritime nature becomes pivotal in a case involving specialty services for drilling or production in navigable waters? As discussed below, this issue was scrutinized in a maritime appeal action filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Apache Corporation (“Apache”) had a blanket master services contract (“MSC”) with Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, L.L.P. (“STS”). This MSC Had an indemnity provision that ran in favor of Apache and its contractors. The work order didn’t require a vessel, nor was it anticipated that it would be needed to perform the job. Apache contracted with Larry Doiron, Inc.

(“LDI”), to provide a crane barge that was needed for the operation. Unfortunately, a member of the STS crew was injured by LDI operators during crane usage, prompting LDI to file a limitation of liability proceeding as the crane’s owner and a complaint against STS to seek indemnity as per the MSC.