CASTRO v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ABC LLC XYZ (2026)

After two final judgments of dismissal due to settlements in this personal injury case, defendant, 1 Priority Environmental Services, Inc. (1 Priority), seeks review of two interlocutory rulings issued prior to the first final judgment. Finding that we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this matter, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny the answer to the appeal filed by defendant, Homeland Insurance Company of New York (Homeland), requesting damages for frivolous appeal.

BACKGROUND

On July 12, 2017, Meylin Castro was working at First United Methodist Church of Denham Springs (First UMC) doing asbestos abatement in the sanctuary. Castro was employed by Southern Pro Solutions, Inc. (Southern Pro), which had a contract to supply labor to 1 Priority for the project. Castro was working on top of a scaffold that had been provided by Sunbelt Rentals Scaffold Services, Inc. (Sunbelt). While sweeping off the scaffolding, Castro fell three stories to the floor, through an area of the scaffold where deck plates were absent. Castro suffered serious injuries which left her a paraplegic.

On May 22, 2018, Castro filed suit on behalf of herself and her children (collectively, the Plaintiffs).¹ The Plaintiffs named as defendants: First UMC and its insurer, Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church Mutual); Sunbelt and its insurer, later identified in a supplemental petition as ACE American Insurance Company (ACE); and 1 Priority and its insurer, later identified in a supplemental petition as Homeland. Additionally, multiple incidental actions were filed: Southern Pro and Markel Insurance Company (Markel) intervened, seeking to recover worker's compensation benefits and expenses against First UMC and Church Mutual, Sunbelt and ACE, and 1 Priority and Homeland.² First UMC filed a cross-claim against 1 Priority and a third-party demand against Homeland. Southern Pro, Markel, and the Plaintiffs all settled and dismissed their claims against First UMC and Church Mutual and, thereafter, First UMC settled and dismissed its claims against 1 Priority and Homeland.

1 Priority moved for summary judgment against the Plaintiffs, asserting it was Castro's statutory employer, and therefore, her tort claims against it were barred by La. R.S. 23:1032(A), which provides that an employee's exclusive remedy against her employer for an injury at work is workers’ compensation benefits. 1 Priority also moved for summary judgment as to its liability based on the intentional tort exclusion set forth in La. R.S. 23:1032(B), which allows an employee to maintain a cause of action against an employer for a tort resulting from an intentional act. The trial court denied 1 Priority's motions for summary judgment as to both issues and 1 Priority filed a writ application with this court. On October 1, 2021, this court issued an action granting 1 Priority's writ in part, reversing the portion of the trial court's judgment denying 1 Priority's summary judgment as to its status as Castro's statutory employer, and granting summary judgment to 1 Priority as to that issue. This court denied the writ in part as to whether Castro's accident was the result of an intentional act. See Castro v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2021-0700 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/1/21), 2021 WL 4494012 (unpublished).

1 Priority also filed a motion for leave to file a cross-claim against its commercial general liability (CGL) and excess liability (excess) insurer, Homeland, alleging that 1 Priority had a risk of exposure in excess of Homeland's policy limits as Homeland had refused to indemnify 1 Priority for any judgment (reserving its rights) and had refused to settle the matter. 1 Priority alleged that it had retained counsel to assist with obtaining indemnity coverage at its own expense, and it sought to assert claims for indemnity in excess of policy limits and for bad faith exposure to an excess judgment. On May 10, 2022, the trial court denied 1 Priority's motion for leave to file the cross-claim as premature, noting there had been no settlement, judgment, or finding of liability against 1 Priority. 1 Priority filed a writ with this court, which was denied. See Castro v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2022-0635 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/17/22), 2022 WL 3444899 (unpublished). 1 Priority also filed a third-party demand against Southern Pro and its insurers, Crum and Forster Insurance Company (Crum and Forster) and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's), seeking indemnification. Lloyd's later filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted and dismissed all claims against it.

Additionally, Homeland filed a motion for partial summary judgment on insurance coverage, asserting that the Homeland policies do not provide coverage for the Plaintiffs’ claims that Castro's accident and injury were substantially certain to occur due to an “Expected or Intended Injury” exclusion in its CGL policy and its follow-form excess policy. On September 1, 2022, the trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Homeland, finding that the CGL policy issued to 1 Priority excluded coverage for expected or intended injuries that were substantially certain to occur. No writ or appeal was taken from this final judgment.

After these settlements and motion practice, the remaining claims were: (1) the Plaintiffs’ and the intervenors’ (Southern Pro and Markel) claims against Sunbelt, ACE, 1 Priority, and/or Homeland; and (2) 1 Priority's third-party claims against Southern Pro and Crum and Forster. Following additional proceedings, a joint motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the intervenor Markel, and the defendants, Sunbelt, ACE, 1 Priority, Crum and Forster, and Homeland, asserting that the “matter has been fully compromised and settled,” and seeking a judgment of dismissal of all of the claims of the Plaintiffs and Intervenor against the defendants to be “dismissed with full prejudice,” and with each party bearing its own costs.³ The trial court signed this judgment of dismissal on December 15, 2022, and notice of the judgment was mailed on December 22, 2022. No appeals were taken from this final judgment.

Subsequently, on July 7, 2023, another joint motion for dismissal with prejudice was filed by 1 Priority, Crum and Forster, and Southern Pro, seeking a judgment dismissing all third-party claims between those parties. In response, the trial court signed a “Final Judgment As To All Claims” on July 10, 2023, which dismissed the third-party claims between 1 Priority, Crum and Forster, and Southern Pro with prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs. The judgment further stated:

All other claims in this matter were dismissed with prejudice by Judgment of Dismissal dated December 15, 2022, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Final Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT, because this Judgment along with this Court's previous December 15, 2022 Judgment resolves all principal and incidental claims asserted in this matter, this Judgment is a FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO ALL CLAIMS pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1911, allowing an appeal of right of this and/or any previous Judgment, Order, or oral ruling of this Court in this matter pursuant to that article.

Notice of this judgment was mailed on September 15, 2023.⁴ On November 22, 2023, 1 Priority filed a petition for devolutive appeal, seeking to appeal “the Final Judgment as to All Claims,” including “all interlocutory judgments, orders, and rulings” of the trial court. An appeal order was signed on December 13, 2023.

In a motion to designate the record, 1 Priority outlined four points for appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying its motion for leave to file cross-claim against Homeland; (2) the trial court erred in granting Homeland's motion for partial summary judgment on insurance coverage; (3) all arguments raised by 1 Priority in its motion for leave to file cross-claim against Homeland; and (4) opposition to Homeland's motion for partial summary judgment on insurance coverage. The record for this appeal was lodged on September 29, 2025, and the notice of lodging specified that the appeal was taken from the July 10, 2023 final judgment. In its appellate brief, 1 Priority assigns error to the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment on Homeland's insurance coverage, and the trial court's denial of 1 Priority's cross-claim against Homeland as premature. In response, Homeland filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, a motion for sanctions, and an answer to appeal incorporating its motion to dismiss and seeking sanctions, including attorney fees, against 1 Priority and/or its counsel for filing a frivolous appeal. Homeland's motions and a rule to show cause issued by this court concerning the timeliness of 1 Priority's appeal were all referred to this merits panel on December 23, 2025.

TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

After the appeal was lodged and upon examination of the record, this court, ex proprio motu, issued the above-referenced rule to show cause order advising that the appeal appeared untimely as to the July 10, 2023 final judgment and directing the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Following briefing by the parties, the rule to show cause was referred to the panel to which this appeal was assigned. Castro v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2025-0964 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/25) (unpublished). Thereafter, the record was supplemented with undisputed documentation indicating that the notice of the July 10, 2023 judgment was mailed on September 15, 2023. Thus, 1 Priority's appeal filed on November 22, 2023, was within sixty days of the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial and was, therefore, timely as to the July 10, 2023 final judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 2087. The law is well settled that appeal delays do not begin to run until proper notice is mailed by the clerk. Voelkel v. State, 95-0147 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 671 So.2d 478, 480, writ denied, 95-2676 (La. 1/12/96), 667 So.2d 523. Furthermore, any doubt regarding the mailing of the notice of judgment should be resolved in favor of the right to appeal. See Duncan v. Gauthier, 2021-0220 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/28/21), 332 So.3d 1191, 1197-1198.

Additionally, Homeland filed in this court a motion to dismiss 1 Priority's appeal as untimely for another reason. Homeland urges the dismissal of this appeal because, despite referencing the July 10, 2023 final judgment in the notice of appeal, the designation of the record makes clear that 1 Priority is appealing matters related to the denial of 1 Priority's motion to file a cross-claim against Homeland and the granting of Homeland's motion for partial summary judgment on insurance coverage. Homeland argues that any matters related to those two motions were made final by the December 15, 2022 judgment that dismissed Homeland and 1 Priority with prejudice, but was not appealed. Homeland maintains that the July 10, 2023 final judgment had no effect on the untimeliness of 1 Priority's appeal as to the December 15, 2022 final judgment. Homeland also points out that when 1 Priority's counsel signed the joint motion to dismiss that prompted the December 15, 2022 final judgment dismissing Homeland and 1 Priority with prejudice, the matters between Homeland and 1 Priority were fully compromised and settled, mooting this appeal. The motion to dismiss was referred to the merits of this appeal. Castro v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2025-0964 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/25) (unpublished).

Raising the same arguments as set forth in its motion to dismiss, Homeland also filed a separate motion for sanctions in this court. Homeland argues that 1 Priority's appeal is frivolous and that sanctions, including attorney fees and costs, are warranted pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2164, because 1 Priority confessed judgment in the December 15, 2022 final judgment of dismissal. Homeland maintains that 1 Priority has no cause of action for indemnity, bad faith, or insurance coverage and no legal basis for relief. The motion for sanctions was referred to this merits panel along with the motion for dismissal. Castro v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2025-0964 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/25) (unpublished).

1 Priority opposed both of Homeland's motions in this court. 1 Priority contends that the December 15, 2022 judgment merely dismissed the Plaintiffs’ and the Intervenor's claims against 1 Priority and Homeland and had no effect on the delay to appeal the two interlocutory judgments for which 1 Priority now seeks to appeal. 1 Priority asserts it had no reason to appeal the December 15, 2022 judgment of dismissal, because it did not concern 1 Priority's claims against Homeland, and that the two interlocutory judgments did not become appealable until the July 10, 2023 final judgment was signed. 1 Priority further argues that its appeal is not frivolous or moot and does not warrant sanctions.

Homeland's motions both address the same issues, i.e. the timeliness of the appeal as to the December 15, 2022 final judgment of dismissal and the two interlocutory rulings made before that judgment. The crux of Homeland's argument is that 1 Priority's appeal raises issues strictly concerning the December 15, 2022 final judgment of dismissal that dismissed Homeland with prejudice, rather than the July 10, 2023 final judgment of dismissal. We find merit to this argument. When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to review of the final judgment appealed. Dunbar v. Howard, 2021-1171 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/16/22), 348 So.3d 738, 743 n.9. But if a final judgment is issued, jurisprudence does not suggest that an interlocutory judgment may be appealed without also seeking review of the final judgment. See Palmisano v. Nauman-Anderson, 2017-511 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/17), 236 So.3d 1275, 1278.

Nothing in this designated record reflects that any claims remained against Homeland after it was dismissed with prejudice on December 15, 2022. Therefore, the December 15, 2022 judgment of dismissal was final as to Homeland. No appeal was taken from that judgment, where notice of the judgment was mailed on December 22, 2022, and the instant appeal was not filed until November 22, 2023. Thus, any appeal of issues related to Homeland should have been raised in an appeal from the judgment that dismissed Homeland on December 15,2022. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(A)(1) and (A)(3); Cavalier v. Rivere's Trucking, Inc., 2003-2197 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/17/04), 897 So.2d 38, 40 (finding that, because no timely appeal was taken from a partial final judgment dismissing one defendant, this court lacked jurisdiction with regard to any issues concerning the propriety of that judgment in an appeal of a judgment dismissing another defendant). Accordingly, Homeland's dismissal with prejudice from this litigation on December 15, 2022, had the effect of a final judgment on the merits, and this court lacks jurisdiction with regard to any issues concerning the propriety of that judgment.

Moreover, even if the December 15, 2022 judgment of dismissal was not final as to Homeland and an appeal regarding matters related to Homeland was proper only after the entry of the July 10, 2023 final judgment, Homeland correctly notes that 1 Priority did not identify any error related to the July 10, 2023 judgment in its motion to designate the record or in its appellant brief. Instead, 1 Priority only notes the trial court's alleged error with respect to the denial of its motion for leave to file a cross-claim against Homeland and the granting of Homeland's motion for partial summary judgment as to insurance coverage. Both of those rulings are interlocutory judgments. See Barringer v. Robertson, 2015-0698 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/2/15), 216 So.3d 919, 926 n.7, writ denied, 2016-0010 (La. 2/26/16), 187 So.3d 1004 (the denial of a motion for leave to file an amended petition is an interlocutory judgment); Labarre v. Texas Brine Co., LLC, 2017-063 8 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/31/17), 2017 WL 4950033 (unpublished) (a judgment granting partial summary judgment on duty to defend claim was interlocutory). Interlocutory judgments may not be appealed without also seeking review of the final judgment. See Travis v. Travis, 2025-0440 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/14/25), 2025 WL 1927630 (unpublished) (citing Palmisano, 236 So.3d at 1278). Therefore, the interlocutory judgments are not properly before this court, and 1 Priority's appeal should be dismissed on this basis.

ANSWER TO APPEAL

We will consider Homeland's motion for sanctions in this section, as Homeland filed a timely answer to this appeal and incorporated its arguments for sanctions into its answer. Homeland alleges that 1 Priority's appeal is frivolous, because it was filed months after Homeland and 1 Priority were dismissed from the litigation due to a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ claims. Thus, Homeland argues that there will never be a cause of action against Homeland for indemnity, bad faith, or an excess judgment. Homeland requests sanctions, costs, and attorney fees against 1 Priority for frivolous appeal, alleging counsel for 1 Priority cannot seriously believe in the position advocated.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2164 provides that an appellate court may award damages, including attorney fees, for a frivolous appeal, and may tax the costs of the lower or appellate court, or any part thereof, against any party to the suit, as in its judgment maybe considered equitable. However, courts have bear reluctant to grant damages under Article 2164, as it is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Henkelmann v. Whiskey Island Preserve, LLC, 2013-0180 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/15/14), 145 So.3d 465, 471. To assess damages for a frivolous appeal, it must appear that the appeal was taken solely for the purpose of delay or that counsel does not sincerely believe in the view of law he advocates. Furthermore, because appeals are favored in our law, penalties for the filing of a frivolous appeal will not be imposed unless they are clearly due. Id. We do not agree with 1 Priority's arguments and we find that they lack merit. However, we cannot say this appeal was taken solely for the purpose of delay or that appealing counsel does not seriously believe in the position advocated. Therefore, damages for frivolous appeal are denied.

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, we are without appellate jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of 1 Priority Environmental Services, Inc., and grant Homeland Insurance Company of New York's motion to dismiss. We deny Homeland Insurance Company of New York's motion for sanctions and the relief requested in its answer to this appeal. All costs of this appeal are assessed to 1 Priority Environmental Services, Inc.

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED; ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

While I join the majority in the denial of the motion for sanctions and the answer to the appeal, I respectfully dissent from the dismissal of the appeal.

The July 10, 2023 judgment appealed in this matter dismissed the third party claims of 1 Priority Environmental Services, Inc. (“1 Priority”) against third party defendants, Southern Pro Solutions, Inc. (“Southern Pro”), and Crum and Forster Insurance Company (“Crum and Forster”). However, the judgment further stated that it “along with this Court's previous December 15, 2022 Judgment resolves all principal and incidental claims asserted in this matter[,]” attaching the December 15, 2022 judgment and an exhibit and concluding that the July 10, 2023 judgment is a final judgment as to all claims in the suit. The language in the July 10, 2023 judgment is inaccurate. These two judgments do not dispense with the whole of the case. Multiple other judgments dismissed the numerous principal and incidental demands including judgments dated October 2, 2020, October 7, 2020, August 9, 2021, and September 1, 2022. However, a careful inspection of all judgments, including the December 15, 2022 and July 10, 2023 judgments, reveals that intervenor Southern Pro's claims against 1 Priority and Homeland Insurance Company of New York (“Homeland”) were not dismissed.

Southern Pro and its insurer and claims administrator Markel Insurance Company (“Markel”) jointly filed a petition for intervention, seeking to recover worker's compensation benefits and expenses against First United Methodist Church of Denham Springs (“First UMC”) and Church Mutual Insurance Company (“Church Mutual”), Sunbelt Rentals Scaffold Services, Inc. (“Sunbelt”) and ACE American Insurance Company (“ACE”), and 1 Priority and Homeland. Thereafter, intervenors Southern Pro and Markel's claims against First UMC and Church Mutual were jointly dismissed in a judgment dated October 2, 2020. However, only intervenor Markel's claims against Sunbelt, ACE, 1 Priority, and Homeland were dismissed in the December 15, 2022 judgment as is clearly evidenced in the motion to dismiss, in which Southern Pro is neither mentioned nor represented by counsel, and the judgment itself, which fails to dismiss Southern Pro's claims against Sunbelt and ACE and 1 Priority and Homeland. Accordingly, intervenor Southern Pro's claims against Sunbelt, ACE, 1 Priority, and Homeland appear to remain viable after the December 15, 2022 and the July 10, 2023 judgment, notwithstanding the language of the July 10, 2023 judgment stating that the two judgments resolve all principal and incidental claims asserted in the case. Without the dismissal of intervenor Southern Pro's claims against Homeland in the December 15, 2022 judgment, Homeland appears to remain in the suit. Therefore, on this basis, I would not dismiss 1 Priority's appeal of the July 10, 2023 judgment.

Moreover, I disagree with the majority's position that 1 Priority was required to assign error to the July 10, 2023 judgment itself in order to seek review of otherwise non-appealable interlocutory rulings. In the seminal case of People of Living God v. Chantilly Corp., 251 La. 943, 947-48, 207 So.2d 752, 753 (1968), our Supreme Court stated as follows:

The general rule undoubtedly is, as stated from time to time by this court, that an interlocutory judgment which does not cause irreparable injury is not appealable. (See also Article 2083 of the Code of Civil Procedure.) But this does not mean that such judgments are never subject to appellate review. It merely means that they are not independently and immediately appealable, and that appellate review thereof must await rendition of an appealable judgment in the cause. There are innumerable sorts of interlocutory judgments which, as such, are not independently appealable—i.e., overruling of pleas of prescription, of non-joinder of parties, of lis pendens, of exceptions of no cause and no right of action, etc. Nevertheless, when a judgment is rendered in the case which is appealable, the reviewing court can then consider the correctness of the prior interlocutory judgment.

(Emphasis added.) Additionally, neither Travis v. Travis, 2025-0440 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/14/25), 2025 WL 1927630 0 (unpublished) nor Palmisano v. Nauman-Anderson, 2017-511 (La. App. 5th Cir. 12/27/17), 236 So.3d 1275, 1278, cited by the majority, support the implied assertion that error must be assigned to the final judgment appealed in order to obtain review of interlocutory judgments. Rather, both cases simply establish that an appeal must be perfected or obtained by the filing of a motion to appeal in order to seek appellate review of interlocutory judgments.¹

In Travis, this court did not consider a writ application after applicant notified the court a final judgment was subsequently signed by the trial court, stating that when an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, an appellant may also seek review of all adverse interlocutory judgments. In noting that if a final judgment is issued, jurisprudence does not suggest that an interlocutory judgment may be appealed without also seeking review of the final judgment, this court cited Palmissano. In Palmissano, the appellant filed a motion for devolutive appeal of an interlocutory judgment, and the trial court's appeal order was limited to the interlocutory judgment. Acknowledging that it appeared the appellant intended to appeal both the interlocutory and the final judgment, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the final judgment. Without seeking an appeal of the final judgment, the court also lacked jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory judgment. Palmisano, 236 So.3d at 1277-78.

By filing a motion for appeal and obtaining an order of appeal of the July 10, 2023 final judgment, purportedly resolving all principal and incidental claims asserted in the suit, 1 Priority could seek appellate review of the interlocutory judgments.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Castro's minor children are Monica Gissell Castaneda-Castro, David Mejia-Castro, and Dylan Sneijder Mejia-Castro, and her one adult child is Meylin P. Castro.

2.   Although Southern Pro and Markel did not expressly name 1 Priority, ACE or Homeland as defendants-in-intervention, the designated record reflects that 1 Priority answered the intervention petition as a defendant.

3.   The full status of Southern Pro's intervention claims is unclear in this designated record. We also note that neither Southern Pro or Markel join in this appeal.

4.   While a certificate at the bottom of the July 10, 2023 judgment stated that the notice was signed and mailed by a deputy clerk on July 14, 2023, it is undisputed that the notice was actually mailed on September 15, 2023.

1.   I further note that 1 Priority's assertion that the interlocutory judgments became final upon the issuance of the July 10, 2023 judgment is incorrect. Interlocutory judgments never become final. Rather, an interlocutory judgment becomes subject to review on appeal when an appealable judgment is rendered in the case. See Ballard v. Waitz, 2006-0307 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/06), 951 So.2d 335, 338, writ denied, 2007-0846 (La. 6/15/07), 958 So.2d 1193

WOLFE, J.

Hester, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.