Leroy R Hawkins and Jocelyn S Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Company, Aaron R Gable and Aaron Gable Agency, Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 26, 2022
• Docket: 2022-C-0222
• Status: Published

Opinion

LEROY R HAWKINS AND * NO. 2022-C-0222 JOCELYN S HAWKINS * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * ALLSTATE INSURANCE FOURTH CIRCUIT COMPANY, AARON R GABLE * AND AARON GABLE STATE OF LOUISIANA AGENCY, INC. *******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2018-09157, DIVISION “F-14” Honorable Jennifer M Medley, ****** Chief Judge Terri F. Love ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Pro Tempore James F. McKay, III)

Christopher W. Kaul Matthew R. Fiegler 601 Poydras Street, Suite 1850 New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

Ike Spears SPEARS & SPEARS 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1825 New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

WRIT DISMISSED October 26, 2022 TFL

RLB This matter derives from a lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs, Leroy R. Hawkins DLD and Jocelyn S. Hawkins (“Plaintiffs”), in which Plaintiffs contended that their SCJ insurer and their agent, Defendants/Applicants, Aaron R. Gable Agency and Aaron JFM Gable Agency, Inc. (“Applicants”), failed to properly notify Plaintiffs of a policy

cancellation. Applicants sought supervisory writ review of the trial court’s March

15, 2022 judgment which denied their motion for summary judgment. Subsequent

to the matter being fixed for oral argument, Applicants filed an unopposed motion

to dismiss their writ application. For the reasons discussed herein, we grant

Applicants’ motion to dismiss.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs sued their insurer, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) and

Applicants after Allstate denied insurance coverage for damage to their home

resulting from a fire. According to the petition, the policy had been cancelled,

however, Plaintiffs did not receive notice of the cancellation. The petition alleged,

in part, that Plaintiffs paid the policy by automatic monthly withdrawals and that

Applicants’ representatives contacted Ms. Hawkins at times of renewal or if there

1 was any inability by the bank to process the automatic withdrawal. Plaintiffs alleged

they received no notice of cancellation and asserted that Applicants “intentionally

and fraudulently represented to [them] that their homeowner’s policy was at all times

in full force and effect and never cancelled.” As a result of Applicants’ alleged

negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiffs argued that they were misled to believe they

had a valid homeowner’s policy, and accordingly, incurred damages when Allstate

denied their claim.

Applicants filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, Applicants

asserted that as the agent, they had no duty to inform Plaintiffs of the policy

cancellation and claimed that Allstate, the insurer had timely notified Plaintiffs of

the cancellation. Applicants also contested whether Plaintiffs had timely filed an

opposition to their motion for summary judgment.

The trial court denied Applicants’ motion for summary judgment, adopting

the reasons set forth by Plaintiffs in their opposition. Applicants filed a notice of

intent to seek writs, and thereafter, timely filed the present writ application.

Upon receipt of Applicants’ writ application, this Court fixed the matter for

oral argument on July 12, 2022. Applicants filed a motion to continue, representing

that the parties were attempting to resolve the matter. This Court granted the motion

to continue and re-set the matter for argument on September 20, 2022. Applicants

again requested a continuance. Applicants maintained that the dispute had been

resolved in mediation and that the parties needed time to finalize a settlement

agreement. The matter was continued until October 26, 2022.

On October 24, 2022, Applicants filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss

and/or in the Alternative, Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing. Applicants

2 asserted that the matter had been completely resolved amongst the parties and an

executed Joint Motion to Dismiss had been filed in the trial court.

DECREE

Appellate courts do not render advisory opinions on moot issues. See

Succession of Dedais, 2018-0914, p. 4 (La. 4 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So.3d 1271, 1273.

Accordingly, based on Applicants’ representation that the matter has been

completely resolved and a joint motion to dismiss has been filed with the trial court,

we grant Applicants’ unopposed motion to dismiss and dismiss the writ application

with prejudice.

WRIT DISMISSED