Calvin J. Hill, individually and as the of The Succession of Elnore Johnson Hill v. TMR Exploration, park Exploration, Inc. and Vitol Resources, Inc. ( 2019 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
CALVIN J. HILL, INDIVIDUALLY NO. 2019 CW 1089
AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE
SUCCESSION OF ELNORA JOHNSON
HILL, ET AL
VERSUS
TMR EXPLORATION, INC., PARK
EXPLORATION, INC., AND VITOL DEC 0 6 2019
RESOURCES, INC., ET AL
In Re: Gemini Insurance Company, for
applying supervisory
writs, 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of west
Baton Rouge, No. 41245.
BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The portion of the
trial court' s June 24, 2019 ruling denying the motion for
summary judgment filed by Gemini Insurance Company as to the
plaintiffs' claims for damages under La. R. S. 22: 1892, La. R. S.
22: 1893, and La. R. S. 22: 1973 is reversed.
Statutory penalties
are inappropriate when the insurer has a reasonable basis to
defend the claim and was
acting in good - faith reliance on that
defense. Bingham v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 2012- 0375
La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 12), 2012 WL 5386619, * 2( unpublished)
citations omitted). Gemini pointed out the absence of factual
support for these claims as the evidence showed Gemini had
reasonable doubts concerning coverage for the plaintiffs' claims
and, therefore, had the right to litigate these claims without
being subjected to damages and penalties. Calogero v.
Safeway
Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 99- 1525 ( La. 1/ 19/ 00), 753 So. 2d 170, 173
citations omitted). Therefore, we grant Gemini' s motion for
summary judgment, in part, and dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
asserted against Gemini pursuant to La. R. S. 22: 1892, La. R. S.
22: 1893, La. R. S. 22. 1973, with prejudice. The writ is denied
in all other respects.
JEW
GH
McClendon, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. I
agree with the majority in dismissing, with prejudice, the
plaintiffs' bad faith claims pursuant to La. R. S. 22: 1892, La.
R. S. 22: 1893, and La. R. S. 22: 1973 against Gemini Insurance
Company. However, I dissent in part and would issue a briefing
schedule per La. Code Civ. P. art. 966( H) to reach the merits of
whether coverage exists for the plaintiffs' claims.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
r
DEPUTY & NK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT