Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
How familiar are you with your motorist insurance policy? Are you fully covered for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage? In Louisiana, uninsured motorist coverage protects you if you’re in an accident with an at-fault driver who doesn’t carry liability insurance. Underinsured motorist coverage, on the other hand, steps in when you’re in an accident with an at-fault driver whose liability limits are too low to cover the damage or medical expenses. Every insurance policy in Louisiana is considered to include uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage unless it is validly rejected. In a recent case, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal found that an electronic signature on an online form was valid to uphold an insurance policy.
In August 2011, Plaintiff Rapalo-Alfaor filed a lawsuit against George Lee Jr. and Liberty Mutual, Lee’s insurance company, in the District Court of Orleans Parish. Plaintiff alleged that he was rear-ended while driving on I-610 by Lee. Lee responded to the suite and both parties engaged in discovery for several years. Discovery is an exchange of questions and requests for documents served on the other party in order to establish facts in a lawsuit.
Plaintiff later amended the lawsuit to include Underwriters of Lloyd, Plaintiff’s insurance company. Plaintiff alleged that under his policy with Lloyd he was entitled to medical payments and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Lloyd denied both claims by the Plaintiff. Lloyd subsequently filed two motions for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is a request for the court to rule that the other party has no case because there are no facts at issue. The first motion alleged that Plaintiff had canceled the policy prior to the accident but this was denied by the District Court. The second motion alleged that Plaintiff did not contract for medical payment coverage and he denied uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Lloyd included copies of the policy and the Plaintiff’s application for coverage.
A unique feature of our American federal system is the separate yet intertwined system of state and federal courts. Sometimes a dispute may begin in a state court and end up in federal court. And sometimes, there may end up being parallel proceedings in both the state and federal systems. There are limits, however. A federal court can decline to hear an action if there is a parallel proceeding in the state court system. Recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of appeal was called upon to determine whether a district court erred when it declined to hear a declaratory action and related counterclaims.
Reasonable minds could perhaps agree that “reasonableness” is a word not easily defined. What is reasonable to one person may or may not be reasonable to another. Yet, “reasonableness” is often the term used to measure the soundness of lower courts’ decisions on appeal. And in the case at hand, a “reasonable” conclusion by one person completely barred an entire personal injury lawsuit against multiple parties.
Filing and pursuing a lawsuit is no small task. Besides the often-significant monetary aspect, a plaintiff (the party filing the lawsuit) should be prepared for a large time commitment and effort in providing the necessary evidence to support their case. Good lawyers know how to aid their clients in gathering evidence and navigating the logistical aspects of a lawsuit as efficiently as possible. Litigation can sometimes take years, but a seasoned lawyer will know how to provide the motivation clients need to successfully pursue their claims and reach recovery. In a recent case out of Zachary Louisiana, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit he was simply not prepared to effectively maintain.
The goal of marriage is often “happily ever after.” Sometimes, it does not end up working out that way. What happens when a child born during a marriage is the result of an affair? What legal rights does the real father have towards establishing that the child is his? The following case out of Acadia Parish demonstrates Louisiana’s jurisprudentially-created doctrine of avowal.
Ever wondered about the seemingly daunting world of contracts: the myriad of pages and often boring mechanical reading, not to mention those terms and conditions written in legalese? For most of us, not really. That’s for sure. But sometimes contractual disputes can be interesting. Ever hear the saying don’t mix business with pleasure? Well in a recent case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal was called upon to rule upon the terms of a settlement agreement that prohibited the parties from making disparaging or negative comments about each other.
As the adage goes, there are two sides to every story and when it comes to lawsuits, the details of those stories can make the difference between a courtroom success and a case never making it to trial. A case arising out of Mandeville, Louisiana is the perfect example of just how important the details of a story can be. 
The law often hinges on technicalities, which is why technical accuracy is critical in ensuring that all parties to a lawsuit have a fair and adequate understanding of the issue and that courts operate efficiently. Despite this importance, courts do not want justice to be skirted on the sole basis of a technical error. The Second Circuit Court of Louisiana emphasized this sentiment when it allowed a woman to recover damages for battery, despite the fact that she only alleged negligence in her pleadings. The court was able to do so under Louisiana’s fact-pleading system which allows recovery as long as the facts necessary to establish a claim are pled. 
Discrimination has always been a controversial topic in America and especially salient in the workplace context. The following case arises out of a situation where an employee felt that she was discriminated against based on her race and disability. She sued in federal court based on federal and state discrimination laws.
Law enforcement agencies throughout the country have been under intense scrutiny over the past few years because of controversial policies and procedures. However, one agency in Louisiana, the Sheriff’s Office of St. John the Baptist Parish, faced another type of scrutiny surrounding the termination of a high-ranking official. The termination resulted in a lawsuit based on federal and state law.