 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Chrysler Corp.7/31/2002
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
The defendants, DaimlerChrysler Corporation and Southern Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., appeal the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Michael and Sue Mioton and Safeco Insurance Company of America. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 1998, Michael and Sue Mioton filed suit against DaimlerChrysler and Southern Chrysler claiming that their home was destroyed by a fire originating in their 1996 Plymouth Grand Voyager mini-van, manufactured by DaimlerChrysler and purchased from Southern Chrysler, that was parked in their carport. In their petition, the Miotons stated that they had a fire loss policy with Safeco, but that the policy did not cover all of the losses directly associated with and resulting from the fire. They further alleged that the van contained defects and characteristics that rendered it unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition, which existed at the time it left the defendants' control. In the alternative, they argued that the van was unreasonably dangerous in design because it deviated in a material way from DaimlerChrysler's specifications or performance standards. The Miotons further claimed that Southern Chrysler failed to properly repair the van and that they were entitled to a complete recission of the sale of the van.
In addition, Safeco filed a petition for subrogation urging that the defendants were liable jointly and in solido to it and the Miotons. In that petition, Safeco alleged that the van was unreasonably dangerous, with defects existing in construction and/or composition at the time it left DaimlerChrysler's control, and that the van deviated in a material way from DaimlerChrysler's specifications or performance standards. Safeco further alleged that Southern Chrysler failed to properly repair the van.
The Miotons' suit was eventually consolidated with Safeco's subrogation suit against the same defendants. Southern Chrysler filed a cross-claim against DaimlerChrysler urging that its "Sales and Service Agreement" with DaimlerChrysler provided that it would indemnify and hold the dealer harmless for expenses resulting from a products liability suit. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Southern Chrysler, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based on the Louisiana Products Liability Act and based on negligent repairs.
After a June 2000 trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that there was a defect in the manufacture of the van when it left the control of DaimlerChrysler, and that the defect was the cause of the January 1997 fire. It awarded the Mioton's the following damages:
Uninsured Home Contents $50,000.00
Uninsured Rebuilding Expenses $7,900.00
Loss of Mazda Truck $2,500.00
Auto Rental Expenses $907.79
Storage Expenses $2,672.92
Loss of Income to Linda Mioton $1,409.85
Loss of Income to Michael Mioton $3,897.00
Medical Expenses of the Miotons $0.00
Hardship and Inconvenience $0.00
Mental Anguish and Distress $0.00
In August 2000, a hearing was held to set expert witness fees and attorneys' fees, matters that were not put before the jury. The costs associated with expert fees were resolved at the hearing, leaving the trial court to resolve the issue of attorneys' fees in a written opinion. At issue before the trial court was whether the plaintiffs waived the right to raise the issue of redhibition at trial thereby disentitling them to recover attorneys' fees from
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|