Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffpleamotionclass actionsustainedgood faith
plaintiffdefendantpleamotionclass actionsustainedcivil procedure

Related Cases

Baylson v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 764 F.Supp. 328, 59 USLW 2742
View Case »
McIntosh v. Mills, 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6992, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9468
View Case »
Lowery v. Cardwell, 575 F.2d 727
View Case »
Hodges v. Reasonover, 103 So.3d 1069, 2012-0043 (La. 7/2/12)
View Case »
Margulies By and Through Margulies v. Upchurch, 696 P.2d 1195
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 1698338

Facts

The plaintiff filed a supplemental and amending complaint asserting that her property in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, was insured by State Farm and sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiff alleged that State Farm breached the insurance contract and violated its duties of good faith and fair dealing. She claimed that the pendency of several putative class actions interrupted the prescription period for her claims. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not file her individual claim until July 15, 2011, well after the September 1, 2007 deadline established for such claims.

The plaintiff asserts that her property at 1529 Paula Street in Orleans Parish, Louisiana was insured by a State Farm homeowner's policy and sustained 'substantial damage' as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Issue

Did the pendency of the putative class actions interrupt the prescription period for the plaintiff's claims against State Farm?

Did the pendency of the putative class actions interrupt the prescription period for the plaintiff's claims against State Farm?

Rule

Under Louisiana law, prescription on claims arising from transactions described in a class action petition is suspended until the propriety of the class action is determined. The burden of proving suspension rests with the plaintiff once a claim is facially prescribed.

Article 596 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure is 'a special provision that prevents prescription from accruing against the claims of members of a putative class action until the propriety of the class action or the member's participation in the action is determined.'

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the plaintiff's claims were timely filed by considering the class action tolling doctrine. It found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was a member of the putative class actions she referenced or that her claims were similar to those in the class actions. The court noted that the claims in the cited class actions involved flood damage, while the plaintiff's claims were for wind damage, indicating a lack of identity between the claims.

In fact, this Court has previously rejected identical attempts by the same plaintiffs' counsel to summarily invoke the class action tolling doctrine.

Conclusion

The court granted State Farm's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice due to being facially prescribed.

Accordingly, the defendant's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Who won?

State Farm prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff's claims were not timely filed within the prescribed period set by Louisiana law.

State Farm contends that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, given that the plaintiff has not stated plausible claims for relief because her claims are prescribed.

You must be