INTERNATIONAL WINE SPIRITS INC v. UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE COMPANY LLC (2026)

In this tort action arising during the aftermath of Hurricane Ida, defendants, Jose P. Herrera Coronado, Pineda Transportation, LLC, and United Wisconsin Insurance Company, appeal the trial court's judgment which found defendants liable for damages to plaintiff, International Wine and Spirits, Inc. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 31, 2021, an 18-wheeler driven by Jose P. Herrera Coronado collided with and became entangled in overhead power and communications lines while en route to make a delivery to plaintiff, International Wine and Spirits, Inc. On August 25, 2022, plaintiff filed a petition for damages, naming as defendants Mr. Coronado, his employer and owner of the 18-wheeler, Pineda Transportation, LLC, and their insurer, United Wisconsin Insurance Company. The petition claims the accident severed plaintiff's communication lines, thus interrupting its business operations, resulting in a loss of profits, and also resulting in property damages.

A bench trial on the matter was conducted on December 10, 2024 and January 28, 2025. Witnesses for plaintiff were Officer Kelli Temple, Floriano Taviani, David Thomas, and Carlos Wylie. The defense called no witnesses. The following was adduced at trial.

Plaintiff is a wholesale distributor of wine, spirits, and beer, servicing approximately 3,100 locations in Louisiana. It is located at 4927 Bloomfield Street in Jefferson Parish. Mr. Taviani is president and co-owner of the business. David Thomas, owner of Technical Systems Specialties, was contracted to manage plaintiff's building needs and communications.

On August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana. On August 31, 2021, Mr. Thomas returned to the business and conducted an inspection. He testified that because the power was out, he started portable generators. He confirmed communications were operational through AT&T and Cox Communications. Mr. Taviani also arrived that day and did not find any significant damage to the building or the delivery trucks.

Mr. Thomas, a licensed electrical contractor, explained that three lines supplied power and communications to the building: an Entergy power line, an AT&T communications line, and a Cox cable line. During his inspection, Mr. Thomas noticed the cable line hanging “extremely low.” The line stretched from a pole across the street to a pole on the property and then to the building. With Mr. Taviani's assistance, Mr. Thomas raised the cable line by climbing on top of a truck with an extension ladder, making a loop in the cable, and then tightening the cable to a “height significantly higher than even the power lines” so that it would be out of the way of traffic. A photograph of the raised lines was admitted into evidence. Mr. Thomas did not measure the height of the raised cable line, and therefore could not say if he raised it to the legal limit. Mr. Thomas testified that he did not attempt to raise the AT&T or Entergy lines due to lack of equipment and strength. Mr. Thomas called Entergy, AT&T, and Cox that morning to report the low lines. After raising the cable line, Mr. Thomas observed vehicles, including Entergy trucks and 18-wheelers, pass under the lines without hitting them.

Subsequently, while siphoning fuel from a truck outside, Mr. Thomas heard a loud crash and got “sprayed with glass” from a falling light fixture. He testified that he looked up and saw an 18-wheeler in the street entangled in the overhead lines. He called 911 and then approached the driver, Mr. Coronado. He began looking around and saw that the lines servicing the business were “ripped off the building.” He further explained:

The point of attachment which is where the power lines connected to the building was damaged, broken off. The pipe which feeds the supply for the communications which runs from the left of the building to the right of the building 120 feet or so it was bent, ripped out the side of the building. The sheet metal was torn and the lines were all cut and laying on the ground.

Mr. Thomas took photographs of the scene, which were admitted into evidence at trial. He described one photograph as showing the AT&T line “dug into the refrigeration unit” of the 18-wheeler. He identified the Entergy line and Cox cable line draped over the rear of the 18-wheeler's trailer in another photograph. A different photograph showed a snapped pole on the property. Mr. Thomas admitted he did not witness the accident, but he believed the 18-wheeler hit the AT&T line since it was the only line entangled in the 18-wheeler.

Mr. Taviani testified that at the time the accident happened, he was inside the building. He heard a loud noise and Mr. Thomas yelling. Once outside, he saw an 18-wheeler with power and cable lines surrounding it.

Officer Kelli Temple with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office arrived and observed an 18-wheeler in the middle of the street with electrical lines draped on it. She understood from speaking with someone at the scene that Mr. Coronado was trying to make a delivery when his 18-wheeler “struck a downline and pulled the wires from the building.” Photographs admitted into evidence matched her observations. Officer Temple left the scene once a traffic officer arrived.

Thereafter, Mr. Thomas cleared the debris, and the 18-wheeler made the delivery. Mr. Thomas surveyed the damage and made written notes of his observations. As a result of the accident, both communication lines were detached from the building. Because the majority of plaintiff's orders are received through email or an Electronic Data Interchange, multiple orders had to be canceled. Mr. Thomas tried using a cellular hotspot to process orders, but it was too slow and very limited. A cellular device was ordered that day aimed at mitigating damages, but it arrived after the lines were fixed. During the next 7-8 days, small orders were processed by hand; however, large orders were not processed because of the time and labor involved.

Carlos Wylie, a certified public accountant, testified as an expert in forensic accounting. He quantified plaintiff's lost profits during the specific damage period related to disruption of communications to the business—September 1 to September 7, 2021. He met with Mr. Thomas to discuss the business and reviewed various documents, including tax returns, financial statements, and daily sales reports. Based on this information, he calculated a net loss of $37,276.00 in profits for the seven-day period. He also reviewed restoration expenses incurred by plaintiff to resume operations. The total loss amounted to $61,796.00.

On January 29, 2025, the trial court signed a written judgment finding in favor of plaintiff and against defendants for damages in the amount of $61,796.00, plus judicial interest. In reasons for judgment, the trial court found:

The defendant, Jose P. Herrera Coronado, had a duty to use caution and diligence while driving a large eighteen-wheeler truck particularly in light of the hazardous conditions resulting from the devastation of Hurricane Ida. The evidence established that Coronado, while in the course and scope of his employment with Pineda Transportation LLC, failed to exercise proper care and diligence in observing the communications line which was open, obvious, and unobstructed and caused the front of his truck to hit the communications line pulling down that line that supplied communications to plaintiff, International Wine & Spirits. His negligence and failure to use caution is the sole cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff.

The Court also finds that plaintiff satisfied its burden in proving damages totaling sixty-one thousand seven hundred ninety-six dollars and 00/100 for the damage to its property, restoration of services and loss of profits for the time period it was unable to receive orders.

On February 6, 2025, defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied on March 24, 2025. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to prove defendants’ negligence. Defendants assert no one saw the accident occur and plaintiff did not show that Mr. Coronado failed to exercise proper care and diligence while driving the 18-wheeler. Defendants contend that although Mr. Coronado had a duty to drive carefully, there was no evidence presented that he breached that duty and no evidence presented that it was the cause-in-fact of the damage to the property. Further, defendants argue plaintiff assumed and subsequently breached a duty to ensure that its communication lines were high enough for commercial vehicles to travel under after the cable line was raised.

Additionally, defendants argue the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in this case, because direct evidence was available to explain defendants’ actions, and because there was more than one potential cause of the accident—Mr. Coronado's reckless driving or plaintiff's failure to raise the communication lines to the appropriate height.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In an action to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by another's negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. Entergy Corp., 06-477 (La. 12/18/06), 944 So.2d 564, 578. Proof is sufficient to constitute a preponderance when the entirety of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, shows the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. Id. Thus, the plaintiff in this type of action must produce evidence from which the factfinder can reasonably conclude his injuries, more probably than not, were caused by the negligence of the particular defendant. Id.

In negligence cases, Louisiana employs a duty-risk analysis in determining whether to impose liability under La. C.C. art. 2315. Skillman v. Riverside Baptist Church of Jefferson Par., 14-727 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/15), 171 So.3d 407, 415. The plaintiff must prove five separate elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard; (2) the defendant's conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard; (3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries; (4) the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) actual damages. Desselle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21-553 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/8/22), 343 So.3d 895, 899.

A determination of negligence or fault is a factual determination. Jurado v. Phillips, 23-373 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/28/24), 384 So.3d 1155, 1158. Appellate courts review findings of fact under the manifest error standard of review. Id. Setting aside a trial court's findings of fact requires a determination that the findings are clearly wrong in light of the record viewed in its entirety. Id. Thus, the issue before the appellate court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Jones v. Mkt. Basket Stores, Inc., 22-841 (La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 452, 463. The appellate court must not reweigh the evidence or substitute its own factual findings because it would have decided the case differently. Aych v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 23-89 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/31/23), 374 So.3d 1000, 1006.

Applying a duty-risk analysis to the facts of this case, we find no manifest error in the trial court's determination of negligence. The evidence presented established that two days following Hurricane Ida's landfall, the 18-wheeler driven by Mr. Coronado collided with the overhead power and communication lines attached to plaintiff's building. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Taviani, and Officer Temple all testified that soon after the accident happened, they observed the 18-wheeler in the street entangled in the power and communication lines. Mr. Thomas explained that the AT&T line was “dug into the refrigeration unit” of the 18-wheeler, while the other lines were draped over the back of the trailer. Photographs depicting the 18-wheeler and accident scene supported these observations and were admitted into evidence. Officer Temple testified that the photographs accurately reflected what she observed at the accident scene.

Defendants argue plaintiff breached its duty to ensure that its communication lines were high enough for commercial vehicles to travel under after Mr. Thomas raised the cable line. Mr. Thomas testified that upon his inspection, the Cox cable line was hanging “extremely low.” To prevent any vehicle from hitting the line, Mr. Thomas made a loop in the cable and then tightened the cable to a “height significantly higher than even the power lines.” He did not raise any other lines. He admitted he did not measure the cable line's height once it was raised; however, he testified that he observed multiple vehicles pass under the line after it was raised, including Entergy trucks and 18-wheelers. We find no error in the trial court's decision to credit this testimony.

Thus, upon review of the entire record in this matter, we cannot say that the trial court committed manifest error or was clearly wrong in its factual findings that Mr. Coronado's failure to exercise proper care and diligence in observing the power and communication lines was the sole cause of plaintiff's damages.

Defendants also argue that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence which allows an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant if the facts indicate the defendant's negligence, more probably than not, caused the injury. Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 06-3030 (La. 9/5/07), 966 So.2d 36, 45. However, contrary to defendants’ assertion, the trial court clearly stated that it did not apply res ipsa loquitur to the instant matter. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the trial judge specifically stated that res ipsa did not need to be applied since there was sufficient evidence that Mr. Coronado had a duty following the hurricane to exercise caution and he failed to observe the lines and pulled them down. Accordingly, we find no merit to this argument.

CONCLUSION AND DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

GRAVOIS, J.