Paddie v. Stewart

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Paddie v. Stewart

471 So. 2d 898, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8679

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 12, 1985

DocketNo. 17018-CA

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 471 So. 2d 898 (Paddie v. Stewart) 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

Paddie v. Stewart, 471 So. 2d 898, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8679 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

HALL, Judge.

Passengers in an automobile owned by Rhonda Paddie and insured by West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, brought suit for injuries sustained in a two-car collision that occurred in Mansfield, Louisiana on February 26, 1984. Suit was brought against the driver of the other automobile and his insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America, and against West Bend under its UM coverage of the Paddie automobile. West Bend filed an exception of lack of jurisdiction over the person based upon the [900]*900fact that the policy was sold to Rhonda Paddie, who is now a Louisiana resident, while she was a resident of Minnesota, and upon the fact that West Bend transacts no business in Louisiana. The exception was sustained and plaintiffs appealed.

While the case was pending on appeal, West Bend filed an exception of no right of action in this court, supported by attached documents which show that the case was tried before a jury, that judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for amounts within the limits of the Safeco policy, and that plaintiffs executed a satisfaction of judgment showing the amounts of the judgments were paid in full by Safeco. West Bend asserts the appeal is now moot and seeks damages for frivolous appeal, contending that plaintiffs’ continued prosecution of the appeal after finality of the judgments and satisfaction thereof is frivolous. On the other hand, plaintiffs contend that because serious issues of law are presented which should be resolved, the appeal is not frivolous.

It is apparent that since the judgments in favor of plaintiffs were for amounts within the limits of the Safeco policy, and since the plaintiffs have been paid in full by Safeco, plaintiffs have no cause of action or right to recover against West Bend under its UM coverage, even if the Louisiana court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the issue of jurisdiction is now moot.

A moot case is one in which a judgment is sought that can have no practical effect. Courts will not render judgments on moot issues since such judgments serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief. Caldwell v. Planning Commission of Calcasieu Parish, 425 So.2d 262 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writs denied 430 So.2d 95 (La.1983). Since the issues presented by plaintiffs’ appeal have become moot, this appeal will be dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ claim was not moot when appeal was taken, and the appeal, rather than being frivolous, presented serious issues. Plaintiffs’ failure to advise West Bend of the finality of the judgment subsequently signed and the payment thereof during the pendency of appeal does not warrant the granting of damages for frivolous appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot, and the defendant’s request for damages for frivolous appeal is denied. Costs of the appeal are assessed to the plaintiffs.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

HALL, Judge.

Passengers in an automobile owned by Rhonda Paddie and insured by West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, brought suit for injuries sustained in a two-car collision that occurred in Mansfield, Louisiana on February 26, 1984. Suit was brought against the driver of the other automobile and his insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America, and against West Bend under its UM coverage of the Paddie automobile. West Bend filed an exception of lack of jurisdiction over the person based upon the [900]*900fact that the policy was sold to Rhonda Paddie, who is now a Louisiana resident, while she was a resident of Minnesota, and upon the fact that West Bend transacts no business in Louisiana. The exception was sustained and plaintiffs appealed.

While the case was pending on appeal, West Bend filed an exception of no right of action in this court, supported by attached documents which show that the case was tried before a jury, that judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for amounts within the limits of the Safeco policy, and that plaintiffs executed a satisfaction of judgment showing the amounts of the judgments were paid in full by Safeco. West Bend asserts the appeal is now moot and seeks damages for frivolous appeal, contending that plaintiffs’ continued prosecution of the appeal after finality of the judgments and satisfaction thereof is frivolous. On the other hand, plaintiffs contend that because serious issues of law are presented which should be resolved, the appeal is not frivolous.

It is apparent that since the judgments in favor of plaintiffs were for amounts within the limits of the Safeco policy, and since the plaintiffs have been paid in full by Safeco, plaintiffs have no cause of action or right to recover against West Bend under its UM coverage, even if the Louisiana court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the issue of jurisdiction is now moot.

A moot case is one in which a judgment is sought that can have no practical effect. Courts will not render judgments on moot issues since such judgments serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief. Caldwell v. Planning Commission of Calcasieu Parish, 425 So.2d 262 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writs denied 430 So.2d 95 (La.1983). Since the issues presented by plaintiffs’ appeal have become moot, this appeal will be dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ claim was not moot when appeal was taken, and the appeal, rather than being frivolous, presented serious issues. Plaintiffs’ failure to advise West Bend of the finality of the judgment subsequently signed and the payment thereof during the pendency of appeal does not warrant the granting of damages for frivolous appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot, and the defendant’s request for damages for frivolous appeal is denied. Costs of the appeal are assessed to the plaintiffs.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 898, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paddie-v-stewart-lactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack