Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, incorporated in Connecticut, sued Louisiana-based Wright Insurance Agency, its agent, for breach of contract in relation to bonds that Wright issued to a construction company in Baton Rouge. The bonds were issued to remove a lien that an engineering company had filed for unpaid services connected to work it performed on a Baton Rouge construction site. The breach centered around nine signatures that Wright failed to obtain for the bond documents but were nevertheless required pursuant to Wright’s power of attorney agreement with Travelers. Travelers, aware of the breach no later than March 2001, brought this lawsuit in April 2003. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice because it was filed outside of Louisiana’s statutory peremptive period of one year. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court considers whether Louisiana’s or Connecticut’s statute of limitations period should apply. Connecticut’s limitations period, which is not specifically tailored to insurance companies, is six years. To figure out which state’s law should apply, the court examines Louisiana’s civil code provisions governing choice of law issues on breach of contract claims. A two-step inquiry must be made: 1. determine the relevant policies at issue; and 2. then balance those policies to find which state’s interests are most harmed in light of the facts surrounding the case. Under this two-part test, the court rules that Louisiana law applies. First, Louisiana has a strong public policy interest with this type of suit. Louisiana has demonstrated a desire to regulate the insurance industry with respect to tort and contract lawsuits. No comparable Connecticut provision exists. Second, the facts here strongly militate towards the application of Louisiana law because the contract was entered into in order to allow a Louisiana business to sell insurance to Louisiana customers, the contract was executed in Louisiana, the circumstances surrounding the breach took place in Louisiana, and almost all communication between Wright and Travelers over the bonds occurred within Louisiana. Applying Louisiana’s three-year statute of limitations, the court finds that the act precipitating this case was no later than March 10, 2001, and that is what triggered the statute of limitations. Since the complaint was not filed until April 2003, the complaint was properly dismissed. OPINION:Clement, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.