Mitchell v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL

942 So. 2d 1093, 2006 WL 2739003
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 26, 2006
Docket06-CA-226
StatusPublished

This text of 942 So. 2d 1093 (Mitchell v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL) 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
Mitchell v. KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL, 942 So. 2d 1093, 2006 WL 2739003 (La. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

942 So.2d 1093 (2006)

Wilfred MITCHELL
v.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION.

No. 06-CA-226.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

September 26, 2006.

Robert M. Becnel, Diane K. Zink, LaPlace, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Stephen C. Resor, Michael M. Meunier, Jonathan Rosenberg, Sullivan, Stolier & Resor, New Orleans, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellant.

Panel composed of Judges THOMAS F. DALEY, MARION F. EDWARDS, and FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER.

THOMAS F. DALEY, Judge.

Defendant, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, appeals a judgment against it finding that Kaiser failed to pay a workers' compensation lump sum settlement to plaintiff, Wilfred Mitchell, within the time period prescribed in LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G). The judgment awarded statutory penalties and attorney's fees against Kaiser.

On appeal, Kaiser argues that the delay in paying the settlement was directly a result of the disruptions caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and thus, was beyond Kaiser's control. Further, Kaiser argues that the statutory time period to pay the settlement was suspended by Governor Blanco's Executive Order KBB 2005-32 and as extended by KBB 2005-48, and they should not be cast with penalties and attorney's fees.

In oral reasons given in open court, the trial court found that the fault in the delayed payment lay, not with Kaiser or *1094 defense counsel, but with the "people handling the payment schedule," who were not located in Louisiana and were not adversely affected by the hurricanes.

Plaintiff argues on appeal that Broadspire, Kaiser's insurer and adjustor, is located in Illinois, and thus, was not affected or disrupted by the hurricanes, and thus, the delay in the settlement's payment was not out of Kaiser's control. Alternatively, they argue that the Executive Order does not apply to Broadspire, since it is not located in the affected parishes of Louisiana. And they further argue that the Executive Order was not designed to protect entities like Broadspire from "passing bad checks."

The facts show that Mitchell and Kaiser entered into a settlement of his workers' compensation claim on August 22, 2005 for $20,000.00. As related by defendant's brief and attachments thereto, on August 25, 2005, Kaiser's adjustor at Broadspire Claim Service, Daniel Lemon, mailed the settlement check to Mr. Resor, counsel for Kaiser, to Resor's New Orleans office.[1]

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the New Orleans area, causing Mr. Resor's office to evacuate and relocate to Lafayette, Louisiana, and further causing well-known destruction and disruptions in all basic services, including the mail. Further, on September 24, Hurricane Rita hit southwest Louisiana, causing additional business and mail disruptions, which affected Mr. Resor's temporary office in Lafayette.

Kaiser's brief relates that in the first week of October, Mr. Resor telephoned Mr. Lemon to request a second settlement check for Mr. Mitchell, because Mr. Resor never received the first check in the mail. According to his affidavit, on October 6, 2005, Mr. Lemon sent a second check to Mr. Resor's Lafayette office via the U.S. Mail. He also put a stop-payment order on the first check, according to his affidavit. His affidavit, however, does not state whether he told Mr. Resor of the stop payment. Mr. Resor denied knowing that a stop payment order had been placed on that first check. Coincidentally, also on October 6, Mr. Resor finally received the first settlement check in a batch of mail forwarded from his New Orleans office. He forwarded that first check to Mr. Becnel, counsel for Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Becnel received the check and deposited it into his office trust account, and on October 13th, Mr. Mitchell signed the settlement and release agreement. Mr. Becnel's bank advised him that the check could not be negotiated due to the stop payment order. Mr. Resor's brief states that Mr. Becnel called him on October 24th to advise him that the check had been returned. Meanwhile, the second check, mailed on October 6 to Mr. Resor's Lafayette office, never arrived and has never been located.

On November 14, 2005, counsel for Mitchell filed a Motion and Order to Enforce Lump Sum Settlement Agreement and Assess Penalties and Attorney Fees Pursuant to LA. R.S. 23:1201(G). On November 16, 2005, Mr. Lemon's affidavit states that he sent a third settlement check directly to Mr. Mitchell via Federal Express overnight mail, which, according to the tracking information, Mr. Mitchell received on November 17, 2005.

After receiving opposition from Kaiser, the motion was argued on December 12, 2005, and a written judgment was rendered in favor of Mitchell on December 19, 2005. Kaiser filed a Motion for Reconsideration, *1095 which was denied. Thereafter, Kaiser perfected this appeal.

LSA-R.S. 23:1201(G) states:

G. If any award payable under the terms of a final, nonappealable judgment is not paid within thirty days after it becomes due, there shall be added to such award an amount equal to twenty-four percent thereof or one hundred dollars per day together with reasonable attorney fees, for each calendar day after thirty days it remains unpaid, whichever is greater, which shall be paid at the same time as, and in addition to, such award, unless such nonpayment results from conditions over which the employer had no control. No amount paid as a penalty under this Subsection shall be included in any formula utilized to establish premium rates for workers' compensation insurance. The total one hundred dollar per calendar day penalty provided for in this Subsection shall not exceed three thousand dollars in the aggregate.

Kaiser's counsel argues that the settlement payment was delayed because of disruptions to his office and to the U.S. Mail caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. He argues that Executive Orders KBB-2005-32 and KBB-2005-48 apply specifically to this case. KBB-2005-32 and 48[2] are reproduced as follows:

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. KBB 2005-32

EMERGENCY SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION, PEREMPTION AND OTHER LEGAL DEADLINES

"WHEREAS, the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., confers upon the governor of the state of Louisiana emergency powers to deal with emergencies and disasters, including those caused by fire, flood, earthquake or other nature or man-made causes;
"WHEREAS, Hurricane Katrina struck the state of Louisiana causing severe flooding and damage to the southeastern part of the state, which has threatened the safety and security of the citizens in the affected areas, along with private property and public facilities;
"WHEREAS, pursuant to Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005, a state of emergency was declared for the entire state and is currently in effect;
"WHEREAS, as a direct consequence of the disaster and evacuation, attorneys throughout the state have clients whom they cannot contact due to the client's evacuation outside of their home parishes and in many cases, outside the state of Louisiana;
"WHEREAS, similarly, there are clients who can not contact their counsel due to counsel's evacuation as well as the extreme challenges to communication networks resulting from the hurricane and subsequent flooding;

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

Related

State v. Schnyder
937 So. 2d 396 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
State v. All Prop. and Cas. Ins. Carriers
937 So. 2d 313 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2006)
McCorvey v. McCorvey
923 So. 2d 638 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
942 So. 2d 1093, 2006 WL 2739003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-kaiser-aluminum-chemical-lactapp-2006.