Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of attorneys in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The case, highlights the critical distinction between contractual and delictual claims in insurance disputes and the potential impact on the applicable statute of limitations.
Michael Belanger was involved in a car accident and obtained a judgment against the other driver for an amount exceeding her insurance policy limits. He later sued the driver’s insurance company (GEICO) for bad faith failure to settle within policy limits. Belanger was represented by the same attorneys in both cases.
GEICO successfully argued in federal court that Belanger’s bad faith claim had prescribed (or expired due to the statute of limitations) because it was subject to a one-year prescriptive period for delictual (tort) actions. Belanger then sued his attorneys for legal malpractice, claiming they failed to argue that a ten-year prescriptive period for contractual actions applied.
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted to the 
In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling, the 
In a recent 
In personal injury law, the concept of “prescription” plays a crucial role. It’s essentially a deadline for filing a lawsuit; if you miss it, your claim could be barred forever. A recent 
A recent 
In the realm of legal malpractice, the timing of filing a lawsuit is critical. A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Wells v. Henry T. Dart, Attorneys at Law, APC, underscored this point, highlighting the one-year peremptive period for bringing such claims in the state. Let’s dissect this case and understand the implications for those considering legal action against their attorneys.
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case sheds light on the complexities of personal injury claims following car accidents, particularly when pre-existing conditions are involved. In the case of Lewis v. Fowler, the plaintiffs were involved in a minor accident and subsequently claimed significant damages for aggravated chronic pain. However, the court ultimately ruled that their pre-existing conditions were not substantially worsened by the accident and that they had been adequately compensated by the initial settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurance. This decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accident and any claimed aggravation of pre-existing conditions and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving damages when their medical history is complex.
A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the nuanced boundary between whistleblowing and misconduct in the workplace. The case, Melancon v. Town of Amite City, involved a police officer terminated for running unauthorized criminal background checks and lying about it. While the officer claimed he was acting as a whistleblower, the court ultimately upheld his termination, raising important questions about the limits of whistleblower protection and the importance of adhering to internal policies and procedures.
In a recent