Renee Jackson & Antione Coleman Versus Liberty Personal Insurance Company

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 28, 2020
• Docket: 20-CA-13
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENEE JACKSON & ANTIONE COLEMAN NO. 20-CA-13

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

LIBERTY PERSONAL INSURANCE COURT OF APPEAL COMPANY STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 772-251, DIVISION "P" HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

April 28, 2020

PER CURIAM

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS FHW SMC JJM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, RENEE JACKSON & ANTIONE COLEMAN William R. Mustian, III

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, LIBERTY PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY H. Minor Pipes, III Stephen L. Miles WICKER, J.

Plaintiffs, Renee Jackson and Antione Coleman, appeal from the trial court’s

ruling granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Liberty Personal

Insurance Company, finding that the UM coverage under the Liberty Personal

Insurance Company Policy issued to Ms. Jackson is limited to economic-only

UMBI coverage based upon an enforceable UMBI coverage selection form. For

the following reasons, we remove this case from our May 2020 docket and remand

the case to the district court for preparation of a judgment properly invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court and, thereafter, for supplementation of the appellate

record with that judgment.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Liberty Personal Insurance Company, (hereinafter

“Liberty”), alleging personal injury and property damages as a result of an

automobile accident. In their petition, they allege that Ms. Jackson was driving her

2011 Dodge Charger, with Antione Coleman as a passenger, when they were

struck from behind by an unknown vehicle operated by an unknown driver. The

unknown driver then fled the scene of the accident. At the time of the accident,

Liberty was Ms. Jackson’ automobile insurance provider, and provided coverage

under the uninsured/underinsured bodily injury (UMBI) provision of the policy.

Liberty filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Ms. Jackson

had validly elected economic-only UMBI coverage, and that plaintiffs have been

fully compensated for their economic-only damages from the accident, therefore it

was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiffs opposed the

motion, alleging that the election of economic-only UMBI was invalid under

Louisiana law.

After a hearing on Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court

rendered judgment as follows:

20-CA-13 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Liberty Personal Insurance Company, and against Plaintiffs, Renee Jackson and Antoine Coleman, be and is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the UM coverage under the Liberty Personal Insurance Company Policy is limited to economic-only UMBI coverage based upon an enforceable UMBI coverage selection form.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion for appeal, which was granted. This appeal followed.

Initially we find that the judgment before us is not a final judgment

appealable judgment. We cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our

jurisdiction is properly invoked by a final judgment. Tomlinson v. Landmark Am.

Ins. Co., 15-0276 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/23/16), 192 So.3d 153, 156. For a judgment

to be a final judgment it must contain appropriate decretal language. For the

language to be considered decretal, it must name the party in favor of whom the

ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is

granted or denied. Simon v. Ferguson, 18-0826 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/28/19), 274

So.3d 10, 13-14; Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Techs., Inc.,

10-477 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 916. The specific relief granted

should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source

such as pleadings or reasons for judgment. Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. at. 916.

A summary judgment rendered “as to one or more but less than all of the claims,

demands, issues, or theories against a party . . . shall not constitute a final judgment

unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express

determination that there is no just reason for delay.” La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B).

In their appellate brief, plaintiffs allege that the trial court erred in

dismissing their claim for future economic losses. In its appellee brief, Liberty

argues that the trial court did not err in dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims.

However, the language of the judgment before us determines only the scope of

20-CA-13 2 UMBI coverage under the automobile liability policy issued by Liberty. There is

no language in the judgment dismissing any party from the suit, and we cannot

consider extrinsic sources such as counsels’ requests or arguments in determining

whether a particular relief, such as dismissal of a claim or a party, has been

granted. In the judgment before us, the only relief granted is a finding that the

UMBI coverage extended only to economic losses. Cf. Gaten v. Tangipahoa Par.

Sch. Sys., 11-1133 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/12), 91 So. 3d 1073, 1074. Further, the

judgment was not designated as final for purposes of immediate appeal by the trial

court.

The judgment at issue is an interlocutory judgment, and there has been no

certification of the partial judgment as final pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915.

Therefore, we remove the instant appeal from the docket and remand this matter to

the district court for formulation of an appealable judgment that reflects the judge’s

intentions either to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety or designate the

partial judgment as final after determining that there is no just reason for delay.

Upon the signing of a judgment by Monday, May 4, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall

supplement the appellate record with the judgment no later than the following

Monday, May 11, 2020. Thereafter, this Court will docket this case on the next

appropriate date available.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

20-CA-13 3 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ STEPHEN J. WINDHORST FIRST DEPUTY CLERK HANS J. LILJEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY APRIL 28, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

20-CA-13 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HON. LEE V. FAULKNER, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE) WILLIAM R. MUSTIAN, III (APPELLANT) STEPHEN L. MILES (APPELLEE) H. MINOR PIPES, III (APPELLEE)

MAILED NO ATTORNEYS WERE MAILED