Crosstex Energy Services, LP, Crosstex LIG, LLC and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC ( 2019 )

060M.."•
i . 141.0iM[ftly.I &
LfAl
EMAMAEAEAMM
d
Leopold Z. Sher Attorneys i Party Plaintiff/Appella1
James Garner B
Company,
Peter L. Hilbert
Neal i';
Jeffrey D.
Amanda ' Schenck
New Orleans, i .'
and
Roby_ Ryland Percy
Gonzales, i w w:
and
Travis
Gonzales,
and
Eric 1. Mayer
Houston, Texas
rd
Thear 1. Lemoine Attorney i Party Defendant/ Appellee
New Orleans, i w w:
NationalSuretyCorporation
This appeal relates to one of several lawsuits arising from the August 2012
ippearance of a sinkhole near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Here,
1 1 M= 10: I I I Ii ggl[
National Surety Corporation, the homeowner's insurer of Sol Kirschner. The judgmen)
IRE?
I Jlli• ``/
I:
1
WRIEZIFF715 i ll
E EMEMEMEM
we should defer action here until separate appeals involving Mr. Kirschner wera
resolved. On October 10, 2018, we granted National Surety' s motion to stay unti'
IN1511''i ii I MOMENT! Iii
341
liiisg 11 liii I p
glu
against Mr. Kirschner. Crosstex et al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al., 18- 0749 ( La.
M E AMMUR4,111011012121 I 11111il l il
al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al, 18- 1213 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 11/ 19), 2019 WL
3049762 ( Crosstex 1213), writ denied, ( La. 11/ 12/ 19), So. 3d On May 21,
11111111111 1111111 Igni IFIF
where the plaintiff has a substantive cause of action against the insured. 5oileau M
1111 I I 111 1
13 1 R I ii i F I, I 20EUMErt.
1= 1-
IN
MMEM
we affirmed that judgment in Cro55tex 0749. The trial court also dismissed TexE2.
0
Grosstex 1213.1 Thus, as a result of our decisions, Texas Brine no longer has a
substantive cause of action against Mr. Kirschner; and, Texas Brine no longer has E
IFRI 0= 4 0 OVER IT 1/ I S WIM
air (
moot. See We115 FJrgo 63nk, N.A. v. Tonagel, La. App. I Cir. • 2013
1
IIEFT NEW!, 1111MI 1 11 111 1 1
appeal to Texas Brinel
FAU: 243 4 931141 Uyl I I —
1 Direct actions against insurers are limited to tort liability; but, a lawsuit setting forth numerous theories
of recovery may, in some circumstances, proceed under the Direct Action Statute. See MenL7
Construction Services, Inc. v. Poche, 11- 1474 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 3/ 14/ 12), 87 So. 3d 273, 276; Champion v,
Panel Era Mfg. Co., 4 10 So. 2d 1230, 1235- 36 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 1982).
2
on this cost assessment, we --• not address National Surety' s post -argument Motion I
Determination or Allocation of Appeal Costs, or, In the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Posm
Argument Brief. I
0