International Insurance v. Masur

Louisiana Court of Appeal

International Insurance v. Masur

401 So. 2d 1223, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 4341

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 11, 1981

DocketNo. 14647

StatusPublished

This text of 401 So. 2d 1223 (International Insurance v. Masur) 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

International Insurance v. Masur, 401 So. 2d 1223, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 4341 (La. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

An uninsured motorist carrier sought a declaratory judgment fixing uninsured motorist coverage at $25,000 rather than the $750,000 asserted by the insured. From an adverse judgment in the trial court the plaintiff insurance company appealed. Defendant insured seeks to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not from a “final” judgment, relying upon the rationale of Lantz v. Campbell, 376 So.2d 631 (La. App.3rd Cir. 1979).

Appellate review of judgments rendered in actions for declaratory relief is provided for in La. C.C.P. Art. 1877. It is clear, therefore, that for appeal purposes the judgment in question is a “final” one. In the Lantz case the motion for declaratory judgment was filed in connection with the tort action itself. The motion to dismiss was granted because of the court’s conclusion that “allowing this appeal would constitute piecemeal litigation.” In other reported cases raising this question, it appears that motions to dismiss appeals were granted hecause the trial judge had elected to try the issues of liability and quantum separately and the appeal was from a ruling on the question of liability only.¹

This appeal is from a final judgment in a suit for declaratory relief which was not included within or consolidated with a tort action.² Allowing the appeal will not foster piecemeal litigation in the trial court. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

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

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

An uninsured motorist carrier sought a declaratory judgment fixing uninsured motorist coverage at $25,000 rather than the $750,000 asserted by the insured. From an adverse judgment in the trial court the plaintiff insurance company appealed. Defendant insured seeks to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not from a “final” judgment, relying upon the rationale of Lantz v. Campbell, 376 So.2d 631 (La. App.3rd Cir. 1979).

Appellate review of judgments rendered in actions for declaratory relief is provided for in La. C.C.P. Art. 1877. It is clear, therefore, that for appeal purposes the judgment in question is a “final” one. In the Lantz case the motion for declaratory judgment was filed in connection with the tort action itself. The motion to dismiss was granted because of the court’s conclusion that “allowing this appeal would constitute piecemeal litigation.” In other reported cases raising this question, it appears that motions to dismiss appeals were granted hecause the trial judge had elected to try the issues of liability and quantum separately and the appeal was from a ruling on the question of liability only.¹

This appeal is from a final judgment in a suit for declaratory relief which was not included within or consolidated with a tort action.² Allowing the appeal will not foster piecemeal litigation in the trial court. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 So. 2d 1223, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 4341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-insurance-v-masur-lactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack