Jonnie Buford v. Leah Blanchard

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 7, 2009
DocketCA-0009-0187
StatusUnknown

This text of Jonnie Buford v. Leah Blanchard (Jonnie Buford v. Leah Blanchard) 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
Jonnie Buford v. Leah Blanchard, (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-187

JONNIE BUFORD & JENNIFER BUFORD

VERSUS

LEAH BLANCHARD, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., TODD LASSEIGNE, & ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.

********** APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 67041 HONORABLE WILLIAM D. HUNTER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Oswald A. Decuir, and J. David Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED. Matthew D. Fontenot P.O. Box 4305 Lafayette, LA 70502 Counsel for Defendant-Appellant: Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana

Robert L. Ellender P.O. Box 3537 Lafayette, LA 70502 Counsel for Defendant-Appellee: Allstate Insurance Co.

David Groner 230 W. Main St. New Iberia, LA 70560 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees: Jonnie Buford and Jennifer Buford PAINTER, Judge.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a release of Jonnie and Jennifer

Buford’s claims rising out of a vehicular accident. Safeway Insurance Company

(Safeway) appeals the trial court’s determination that Safeway was not released by

the Release of All Claims entered into by the Bufords on March 24, 2006. Finding

no error in the trial court’s decision, we affirm its judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This suit results from a three car chain collision. It is undisputed that the

Buford vehicle was at the front of the chain, followed by the vehicle operated by Leah

Blanchard, and the vehicle driven by Todd Lasseigne in the final position. In August

2003, the Bufords filed suit against Blanchard and her insurer, State Farm

Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), and Todd Lasseigne and his insurer,

Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). Safeway was added to the suit as an excess

insurer of Lasseigne in January 2006. On March 24, 2006, the Bufords entered into

a Release of All Claims with Lasseigne and Allstate. In January 2007, Safeway filed

a motion for summary judgment asserting that the Release of All Claims served to

release it from liability. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Safeway

applied to this court for a supervisory writ. This court denied the writ finding no

abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the denial of the motion for summary judgment.

The matter was tried by the court on December 4, 2007. After hearing

evidence, the court took the case under advisement and, on March 12, 2008, issued

written reasons for judgment, which it amended on April 23, 2008. Judgment was

rendered on April 23, 2008. Safeway filed a motion for suspensive appeal, and

Allstate has answered the appeal.

1 DISCUSSION

On appeal, Safeway assigns error with regard to the trial court’s determination

that it was not released by the Release of All Claims entered by the Bufords. Safeway

relies on the following language in the Release of All Claims:

Appearers declare that for and in consideration of the payment of the aforesaid amount this day received by them, they do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge TODD LASSEIGNE and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, its and/or their employees, insurers, agents and representatives and any and all other persons, firms, corporations, partnerships and parties whomsoever, of and from any and all past, present and/or future claims, demands, losses, damages, medical expenses, disability benefits, causes of action and rights of action whatsoever, whether in tort, contract or under any other laws of the State of Louisiana or of the United States, known and unknown, anticipated and unanticipated, which Appeasers may or might have and/or to which they may be entitled, in any way resulting from and/or to result from the accident which occurred on or about August 26, 2002 on Louisiana Highway 96 in the City of St. Martinville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana ….

The trial court, in its written reasons for judgment and its amended reasons for

judgment, relies on the following language also found in the Release of All Claims:

Appearers further declared that the aforesaid amount received by them is also received in full, final and complete compromise settlement of any and all claims asserted by them adverse to Todd Lasseigne and Allstate Insurance Company in the suit entitled “Jonnie Buford and Jennifer Buford v. Leah Blanchard, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Todd Lasseigne & Allstate Insurance Company”,bearing Docket Number 67041-D on the docket of the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Martin, State of Louisiana, and they do hereby authorize and direct their attorney to dismiss Todd Lasseigne and Allstate Insurance Company with full prejudice to all of their rights. Appearers further reserve any and all rights against any other parties, including but not limited to Leah Blanchard and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

(Emphasis added.)

The court, in its amended reasons for judgment, found as follows:

On May 12, 2006, on joint motion of the plaintiffs and defendants, Todd Lasseigne and Allstate Insurance Company, this Court

2 dismissed, with prejudice, all claims asserted in this matter adverse to Todd Lasseigne and Allstate Insurance Company. Additionally, on or about March 24, 2006, plaintiffs executed a Release of All Claims in order to settle this matter with regard to Todd Lasseigne and Allstate Insurance Company. Safeway Insurance Company is the liability insurer of Todd Lasseigne and contends that the release executed on March 24, 2006 also released Safeway as insurer of Todd Lasseigne. Plaintiffs counter that the language in the release that reserves rights against “any other party” pertains to Safeway as the language reserves rights against “any other party” not named as a released party. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2203 reads, in part: “The remission or conventional discharge in favor of one of the codebtors in solido, discharges all the others, unless the creditor has expressly reserved his right against the latter.” Hoffpauir v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 219 So.2d 29 (La. 3rd Cir. 1969) extends the above quoted portion of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2203 to debtors ex delicto, as well as to debtors ex contractu. Plaintiffs have success[fully] reserved their rights against any other party than those named in the release, namely Todd Lasseigne and Allstate Insurance Company by including a Reservation of Rights section. As Safeway is not a named party [to the Release], it has not been released by plaintiffs and is considered an “other party” contemplated by the Reservation of Rights section of the release.

The Louisiana Supreme Court in Brown ex rel. Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-

1019, pp.17-22 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So. 2d 741, 748-750 (footnotes omitted), discussed

the interpretation of settlement contracts:

LSA-C.C. Art. 2046 sets forth a general rule of construction, providing that “[w]hen the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent.” LSA-C.C. Art. 2046 (emphasis supplied). The underscored word “further” in this article signifies the true nature of contractual interpretation. The determination that the language contained in a contract is clear and explicit, in itself, involves an interpretive process. For that reason, LSA-C.C. Art. 2046 emphasizes that the process involves no further interpretation, as opposed to no interpretation at all. Exposé Des Motifs of the Project of Titles III and IV of Book III of the Civil Code of Louisiana, p. 67 (1984); R.

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

Related

Brown v. Drillers, Inc.
630 So. 2d 741 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1994)
Horton v. Mobley
578 So. 2d 977 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Higgins v. Spencer
531 So. 2d 768 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Smith v. Leger
439 So. 2d 1203 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)
Duet v. Lucky
621 So. 2d 168 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Maltby v. Gauthier
526 So. 2d 455 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Succession of Teddlie
385 So. 2d 902 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Moak v. American Automobile Insurance Company
134 So. 2d 911 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1961)
Wilson v. Cost+ Plus of Vivian, Inc.
375 So. 2d 683 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Hoffpauir v. Kansas City Southern Railroad
219 So. 2d 29 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jonnie Buford v. Leah Blanchard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonnie-buford-v-leah-blanchard-lactapp-2009.