 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. City Baton Rouge4/30/1998
o the City/Parish by its policy is solely for damages and expenses. It correctly points out that under the Supplementary Payments section of the F & C policy, F & C has obligated itself to pay "in addition to the applicable limit of liability" the following:
(a) all expenses incurred by [F & C], all costs taxed against the insured in any suit defended by [F & C] and all interest on the entire amount of any judgment therein which accrues after entry of the judgment and before [F & C] has paid or tendered or deposited in court that part of the judgment which does not exceed the limit of [F & C's] liability thereon. . . .
On appeal, F & C does not dispute its liability for interest and costs; however, Chicago urges that under the provisions of its policy its liability is for "all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay as damages." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, Chicago contends that the trial court's determination holding it liable "for legal interest from the date of judicial demand, as well as . . . costs in accordance with the law and the policy provisions" is erroneous. Because the judgment specifies that Chicago is liable for interest and costs "in accordance with the law and the policy provisions," we find no error in the trial court's determination. However, because Chicago urges that it is not liable and, based on our review of the policy, we agree that under the terms of the Chicago policy it has not obligated itself for legal interest or costs, we will amend the judgment to read: "[F & C] shall be liable for legal interest from the date of judicial demand, as well as costs, in accordance with its policy provisions."
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we amend the judgment as follows.
(1) The property damage award to Mr. and Mrs. Raby, in community, is reduced from $80,000.00 to $50,037.00;
(2) the award to Mr. and Mrs. Raby, in community, for the damage to their parking lot is increased from $50,000.00 to $51,860.00;
(3) the award to Huston Williams for damage to his personal property is increased from $500.00 to $1223.09;
(4) the award to Leroy Williams for damage to his personal property is increased from $150.00 to $350.00;
(5) insofar as the judgment awards costs and legal interest against F & C and Chicago , we amend the judgment to state, "[F & C] shall be liable for legal interest from the date of judicial demand, as well as attorney fees and costs in accordance with the law and its policy provisions."
In all other respects, the September 12, 1995 judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $5,643.72 are assessed against the City/Parish.
AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
KUHN, J., Dissents and concurs in part.
LeBLANC, J., Dissents in part.
KUHN, Judge, Dissenting in part and Concurring in part.
I must Dissent from the position of the majority with regard to their determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its awards of mental anguish.
It is well-settled that an award for mental anguish as a result of damage to property is normally permitted in four instances: (1) property damaged by an intentional or illegal act; (2) property damaged by acts for which the tortfeasor will be strictly or absolutely liable; (3) property damaged by acts constituting a continuous nuisance; and (4) property damaged at a time which the owner thereof is present or situated nearby and the owner experiences trauma as a result. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 484 So.2d 853, 856 (La.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|