 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleco Corp. v. Johnson9/18/2001
This court granted certiorari to determine whether a utility company has a cause of action, through subrogation, to recover for direct physical damages sustained by its customers to their electrical equipment caused by a power surge when a driver of a dump truck struck a utility pole. We hold that a cause of action exists for the customers to recover damages to their property resulting from the power surge caused by defendant's negligence. Furthermore, accepting the allegations in plaintiff's petition as true, we presume, for the purposes of this opinion, that Cleco has been subrogated to the claims of its customers. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 15, 1997, defendant, Leonard Johnson, was operating a commercial dump truck in a subdivision in Mandeville. Johnson backed the truck into a utility pole owned by plaintiff, Cleco Corporation, an electric utility company. The impact caused certain mechanical wire ties to break, and one of the conductor supports snapped, causing a voltage surge. The surge caused property damage to electrical appliances and equipment of various Cleco customers. Cleco paid a total of $94,020.45 to the one hundred eighty-seven residents and businesses in the area to compensate them for damages to their electrical equipment.
Cleco filed suit against Johnson and his insurer, Legion Indemnity Company, to recover the amounts paid to its customers for their damages. Cleco alleged that it has been subrogated to the rights of its customers. Defendants filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action, or, alternatively, motion for summary judgment, contending that Cleco has no cause of action for the recovery of amounts paid to its customers for damages caused by the power surge. In response, Cleco filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions for summary judgment and the exception of no cause of action without assigning written reasons.
Defendants filed an application for supervisory writs, and the court of appeal granted the writ application, reversed the trial court's ruling, and granted defendants' exception of no cause of action, citing Professional Answering Service, Inc. v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., 521 So.2d 549 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988). Cleco Corporation v. Johnson, 99-0808 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/7/00) ___ So.2d ___. Cleco sought review of the court of appeal's decision with this court, and this court unanimously granted the writ application and remanded this matter to the court of appeal "for briefing and opinion and argument in accordance with their rules." Cleco Corporation v. Johnson, 00-0389 (La. 4/28/00), 760 So.2d 1164.
On remand, the court of appeal affirmed its previous disposition, citing Professional Answering Service, Inc. v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., 521 So.2d 549 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) and determined that Cleco may seek recovery for damages to its utility pole, but neither Cleco nor its customers have a cause of action for damages sustained by the customers. Cleco Corporation v. Johnson, 99-0808 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/00), 775 So.2d 1228.
Cleco filed an application for certiorari, and by an order dated March 23, 2001, this court granted the application. Cleco Corporation v. Johnson, 01-0175 (La. 3/23/01), ___ So.2d ___.
DISCUSSION
The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Gaming Com'n, 94-2015 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So. 2d 885. The exception is tried on the face of the pleadings and the cou
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|