Nunez v. Canik

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Nunez v. Canik

551 So. 2d 796, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1819, 1989 WL 126185

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 24, 1989

DocketNo. W89-992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 551 So. 2d 796 (Nunez v. Canik) 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

Nunez v. Canik, 551 So. 2d 796, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1819, 1989 WL 126185 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY

The “dual-capacity doctrine” has been consistently rejected by the courts of this state except under the limited circumstances considered by our Supreme Court in Ducote v. Albert, 521 So.2d 399 (La.1988). We respectfully disagree with the holding of our Fourth Circuit brethren in Posey v. Lemoine, 471 So.2d 272 (La.App.1985), and decline to follow same. Accordingly, we find that the motion for summary judgment filed by USF & G as the insurer of plaintiff’s employer, Orrie Canik, d/b/a Ka-jon Food Stores, should be sustained and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. La.R.S. 23:1032; White v. Naquin, 500 So.2d 436 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986) and cases therein cited; Dauzat v. State Farm Insurance Company, 473 So.2d 920 (La. App. 3rd Cir.1985). This conclusion renders moot other issues raised by USF & G in its application for supervisory relief.

For these reasons, it is ordered that plaintiff’s suit against United States Fideli[797]*797ty and Guaranty Company be and the same is ordered dismissed with prejudice and at plaintiffs cost.

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

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY

The “dual-capacity doctrine” has been consistently rejected by the courts of this state except under the limited circumstances considered by our Supreme Court in Ducote v. Albert, 521 So.2d 399 (La.1988). We respectfully disagree with the holding of our Fourth Circuit brethren in Posey v. Lemoine, 471 So.2d 272 (La.App.1985), and decline to follow same. Accordingly, we find that the motion for summary judgment filed by USF & G as the insurer of plaintiff’s employer, Orrie Canik, d/b/a Ka-jon Food Stores, should be sustained and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. La.R.S. 23:1032; White v. Naquin, 500 So.2d 436 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986) and cases therein cited; Dauzat v. State Farm Insurance Company, 473 So.2d 920 (La. App. 3rd Cir.1985). This conclusion renders moot other issues raised by USF & G in its application for supervisory relief.

For these reasons, it is ordered that plaintiff’s suit against United States Fideli[797]*797ty and Guaranty Company be and the same is ordered dismissed with prejudice and at plaintiffs cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 796, 1989 La. App. LEXIS 1819, 1989 WL 126185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-canik-lactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack