legal advice

Car Insurance Exclusions: The Battle Between Intent and Fine Print

Published on: September 27, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-shkrabaanthony-5816283-scaled Car insurance policies can be riddled with complex terms and conditions, often leading to misunderstandings between policyholders and insurers. The case of Mandi and Abigail Ardda v. Danielle T. Peters, et al. brings this issue to the forefront, highlighting the challenges of navigating insurance exclusions and the importance of clear communication.

The Accident and the Insurance Claim:

Abigail Ardda was involved in a car accident while driving a car she co-owned with her husband, Mandi. They filed a claim with their insurer, GoAuto Insurance Company, but were shocked to discover Abigail was listed as an excluded driver, despite their belief that she was covered.

Title: Louisiana Court Upholds Earlier Will in Succession Dispute: The Importance of Proper Will Execution

Published on: September 1, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-415767-scaled In a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of adhering to the strict formalities required to execute a valid will. The case, In the Matter of the Succession of Sandra Gabor Dale, involved a dispute between siblings over their mother’s estate after a later will was deemed invalid due to improper execution.

Sandra Gabor Dale passed away, leaving behind three children: Felicia, Christopher, and Michael. Felicia, named as the sole heir in a 2014 will, was granted possession of the entire estate. However, Christopher and Michael later contested this, presenting a 2016 will that divided the estate equally among the three siblings.

The dispute centered on the validity of the 2016 will. The trial court found it to be “absolutely null” due to non-compliance with the formalities required for a notarial testament under Louisiana law. The brothers appealed this decision.

Federal Court Upholds Dismissal of VA Doctor’s Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

Published on: August 29, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-pixabay-263402-1-scaled A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit highlights the complexities and high standards involved in proving employment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case, Stroy v. Gibson, involved a Black physician employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who alleged racial discrimination and retaliation following a peer review of his patient care.

Dr. John Stroy, an African-American physician at the VA’s Lafayette Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, faced a peer review after a patient he treated was hospitalized with acute renal failure. The review initially found that “most experienced competent practitioners would have managed the case differently.” Dr. Stroy, believing this review was racially motivated, filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination.

Later, Dr. Stroy was accused of leaving a patient unattended. Following an investigation, he received a memorandum outlining expectations for his future behavior. He then attempted to amend his existing EEO complaint to include a retaliation claim, which was denied. He subsequently filed a separate retaliation complaint.