Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Number: 2:22-CV-2351
Judge: James D. Cain
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (St. Henry Parish)
Defendant's Attorney: Arianna Elizabeth deGoede, H. Minor Pipes, III, Katherine Lynne Swartout
Description: Lake Charles, Louisiana insurance law lawyers represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendant on bad faith breach of insurance Contract theories.
This lawsuit arises from damages caused by Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, to Plaintiff Gregory Trahan's property at 2919 Broussard Rd., Sulphur, Louisiana 70665. Doc. 8, pp. 2, 5; doc. 15, p. 3. At the time of the loss, Plaintiff's property was insured by Defendant under policy number H3F29176459040. Doc. 8, p. 2; doc. 15, p. 3. Plaintiff claims that he timely notified Liberty of the loss, Liberty inspected his property on February 18, 2021, and Liberty prepared an estimate of $15,986.75, which did not cover the full scope of damages. Doc. 1, p. 3. As a result of the low estimate, Plaintiff claims it retained King Claims & Appraisal & Consulting, who estimated $165,084.98 in total cost of repairs based on the complete scope of observable damage. Id. at 4. On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff brought suit in this Court against Liberty under Louisiana Revised Statutes sections 22:1892 and 22:1973 for not properly adjusting his claim and issuing timely payment. Id.
On October 13, 2022, Liberty filed its Third-Party Complaint (Doc. 8) against Icon and Ace Construction and Technology, Inc., d/b/a Central Roofing (“Ace”), wherein Liberty claims Icon and Ace may be liable to it for negligent and/or intentional increasing of the cost and scope of repairs to Plaintiff's property. Doc. 8, p. 4. Liberty asserts that when it inspected the property on February 18, 2021, no water intrusion had occurred. Id. at 2. Liberty claims that around March 10, 2021, Plaintiff entered a contract with Icon for water mitigation services on his property on the recommendation of Ace despite the fact that water mitigation was not necessary. Id. at 3. Furthermore, Liberty claims that Icon and Ace breached their duty to Plaintiff to provide services in a competent and professional manner; specifically, the unnecessary mitigation work that Icon performed resulted in breach of contract and tort duties owed to Plaintiff. Id. at 4. Thus, Liberty argues that it has a right in subrogation to proceed directly against Icon and/or Ace in the event it is ordered to pay any sums for the additional repairs they created. Id. at 5.
Icon presently moves to dismiss the claims against it in the Third-Party Complaint...
Outcome: "For the forgoing reasons, the Court will grant in part Third-Party Defendant Icon's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion as to the subrogation claims and deny in part as to other requested relief.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED..." Trahan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co (W.D. La. 2023)