Duarte-Ortega v. Disaster Recovery Services, LLC

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Duarte-Ortega v. Disaster Recovery Services, LLC

118 So. 3d 1126, 2012 WL 8267479, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 1788

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 27, 2012

DocketNo. 12-C-883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 So. 3d 1126 (Duarte-Ortega v. Disaster Recovery Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duarte-Ortega v. Disaster Recovery Services, LLC, 118 So. 3d 1126, 2012 WL 8267479, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 1788 (La. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

h WRIT DENIED

Disaster Recovery Services, LLC d/b/a D R Services (relator-employer) and Dallas National Insurance Carrier (relator-insurer), seek this Court’s supervisory review of the trial court’s ruling granting plaintiffs Motion to Compel Retainer of Licensed Claims Adjuster in accordance with LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1. Upon review of the writ application, the opposition thereto, and the reply to the opposition, on the showing made, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling. We find that reading this statute in its entirety in pan materia with other statutes found in Title 22 (the Insurance Code), such as LSA-R.S. 22:337, provides a proper basis for the trial court’s conclusion that LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1 requires the relator-insurer to either establish and maintain a claims office within the state of Louisiana or retain a Louisiana licensed claims adjuster. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.

We also find that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion. Plaintiffs motion sought enforcement of LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1, and therefore was a claim or dispute for application of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the special remedies therein. Wilson v. Louisiana Safety Ass’n of Timberman, 29,263 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/28/97), 690 So.2d 974, 979. Plaintiffs motion did not seek a ruling imposing the statutory penalties on the relator-insurer found in the Insurance Code (such as those found in LSA-R.S. 22:337, involving the refusal, suspension, or revocation of the relator-insurer’s certificate of authority) for its non-compliance with LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1.

Further, the issue of the constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1 was not raised in the trial court, and therefore is not properly before this Court at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is denied.

/s/ Jude G. Gravois JUDGE JUDE G. GRAVOIS

/s/ Marc E. Johnson JUDGE MARC E. JOHNSON

/s/ Robert A. Chaisson JUDGE ROBERT A. CHAISSON

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

h WRIT DENIED

Disaster Recovery Services, LLC d/b/a D R Services (relator-employer) and Dallas National Insurance Carrier (relator-insurer), seek this Court’s supervisory review of the trial court’s ruling granting plaintiffs Motion to Compel Retainer of Licensed Claims Adjuster in accordance with LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1. Upon review of the writ application, the opposition thereto, and the reply to the opposition, on the showing made, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling. We find that reading this statute in its entirety in pan materia with other statutes found in Title 22 (the Insurance Code), such as LSA-R.S. 22:337, provides a proper basis for the trial court’s conclusion that LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1 requires the relator-insurer to either establish and maintain a claims office within the state of Louisiana or retain a Louisiana licensed claims adjuster. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.

We also find that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion. Plaintiffs motion sought enforcement of LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1, and therefore was a claim or dispute for application of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the special remedies therein. Wilson v. Louisiana Safety Ass’n of Timberman, 29,263 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/28/97), 690 So.2d 974, 979. Plaintiffs motion did not seek a ruling imposing the statutory penalties on the relator-insurer found in the Insurance Code (such as those found in LSA-R.S. 22:337, involving the refusal, suspension, or revocation of the relator-insurer’s certificate of authority) for its non-compliance with LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1.

Further, the issue of the constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 23:1161.1 was not raised in the trial court, and therefore is not properly before this Court at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is denied.

/s/ Jude G. Gravois JUDGE JUDE G. GRAVOIS

/s/ Marc E. Johnson JUDGE MARC E. JOHNSON

/s/ Robert A. Chaisson JUDGE ROBERT A. CHAISSON

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 3d 1126, 2012 WL 8267479, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 1788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duarte-ortega-v-disaster-recovery-services-llc-lactapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack