1143 FOUR POINT ROAD LLC v. SOUTH LOUISIANA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

Plaintiff, 1143 Four Point Road, LLC (Four Point Road), appeals a June 25, 2025 summary judgment in favor of Defendant, South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association (SLECA), dismissing with prejudice Four Point Road's claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Four Point Road is the owner of a boat shed located on leased land in Dulac, Louisiana.² During Hurricane Ida, in August of 2021, a utility pole owned and maintained by SLECA fell on the boat shed causing damage. On August 26, 2022, Four Point Road, through its managing member Warren E. Mouledoux, Jr., filed a Petition for Damages against SLECA. Four Point Road alleged, generally, that the utility pole was rotten on the inside and that but for SLECA's failure to ensure a safe, rot-free utility pole, the boat shed would not have been damaged. Specifically, Four Point Road alleged that the base of the utility pole was swollen and the pole was leaning as early as 2019 during Tropical Storm Barry, was defective at the time that SLECA restrung wiring to the boat shed following Hurricane Zeta in 2020, and snapped at the base of the pole during Hurricane Ida because it was “disintegrating at its base due to the open and obvious nature of both wet and dry rot[.]” It further alleged that the boat shed had endured all prior storms and hurricanes with minimal to no damage. According to Four Point Road, upon reasonable care and inspection, SLECA knew or should have known of the defective or ruinous condition of the pole, and failed to maintain, repair, or replace the rotten utility pole. After making inquiries, Four Point Road stated that it had received a bid in the amount of $249,500 to remove and replace the boat shed.

On October 14, 2024, SLECA filed a motion for summary judgment and memorandum in support thereof averring that Four Point Road could not carry its burden of proof at trial. SLECA submitted that any damage to the boat shed during Hurricane Ida was force majeure and that Four Point Road had not produced any evidence that the utility pole at issue fell for any other reason than an Act of God. SLECA further pointed out that Four Point Road had not produced any evidence that the utility pole at issue was in a defective and ruinous condition, nor any evidence that SLECA had any knowledge or constructive notice of any such defective or ruinous condition. SLECA stated that the utility pole had been properly inspected prior to Hurricane Ida and no issues were found with the pole, no complaints had been made regarding the pole at issue, and the meter was read electronically. Even if the utility pole was rotten on the inside, SLECA argued that it would have had no way of knowing or suspecting that such condition existed and Four Point Road had not produced any evidence to the contrary.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, SLECA attached the affidavit of Matthew Peters, Operations Manager for SLECA when Hurricane Ida struck, with attachments discussed below, a photo of the boat shed,³ and excerpts from the July 15, 2024 deposition of Mr. Mouledoux. First, in his affidavit, Mr. Peters attested to the destruction of Hurricane Ida, including that 4,000 utility poles were felled by the storm. In accord, Mr. Peters referenced and attached SLECA's report to the Louisiana Public Service Commission outlining the extent of the damage. Mr. Peters further attested that after Hurricane Ida, SLECA hired Royal Engineering Consultants to perform an assessment of the damage to the power grid, including the area in which the utility pole at issue was located. A graph of the damage data Point produced by the consultants was attached to Mr. Peteres’ affidavit. Mr. Peters further attested that he was familiar with the inspection process for utility poles and that the utility pole at issue had passed inspection in 2016 prior to Hurricane Ida. The inspection report was attached to Mr. Peters’ affidavit. Next, Mr. Mouledoux testified in his deposition, in relevant part, that “some of [his] partners” went to the site of the boat shed after the hurricane, saw and took pictures of the stump that was left where the subject utility pole snapped. Mr. Mouledoux confirmed that he did not notice anything wrong with the pole before the storm.

On January 9, 2025, Four Point Road filed an opposition to SLECA's motion for summary judgment. Four Point Road argued that a myriad of genuine issues of fact existed making summary judgment inappropriate. These proposed issues of fact included the unknown age of the pole, lack of recent inspections, and inadequacy of past inspections of the pole. Four Point Road argued that SLECA ignored its “increased duty to inspect and ensure the safety and integrity” of utility poles on the “other” side of the levee system where it was more susceptible to flooding. It further argued that, had SLECA exercised its heightened duty as an electric utility provider to maintain and inspect this pole, it would have easily discovered the pre-existing defect and ruinous condition of the pole. Regarding force majeure, Four Point Road argued that the Act of God defense is not absolute and does not apply if human fault is involved in causing the loss. Four Point Road posited that the damage to the boat shed during the Act of God could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of SLECA.

In support of its opposition, Four Point Road attached the following: 1) a set of SLECA's responses to interrogatories; 2) the affidavits of Mr. Mouledoux; Joseph R. Kaiser, III, general contractor, previous owner of the boat shed, and former owner of a neighboring property; and Dennis Epp, an engineer and member of the camp which utilized the leased property where the boat shed was located; 3) SLECA's notice and re-notice to take a video deposition of Four Point Road's corporate designee; and 4) various pleadings in the case. The responses to interrogatories indicate that SLECA did not know the age of the utility pole at issue and that the pole was part of scheduled inspections by Osmose Utilities Services in compliance with OSHA guidelines. In addition, visual and sound checks are conducted by SECLA when work is performed on a specific pole.

In pertinent part, Mr. Mouledoux attested in his affidavit that Four Point Road is on a peninsula in a swampy, wet marsh that floods more often since the completion of the Gulf Levee system in 2013. He attested that to his knowledge, not all of the utility poles on Four Point Road fell or broke during Hurricane Ida. He further attested that to his knowledge, all utility poles that have fallen or broken in storms since 1978 have snapped at the top of the pole rather than the base like the pole at issue. Mr. Mouledoux attested that he observed the utility pole at issue after it fell and “was of the impression that the inside ․ was obviously and significantly rotten on the inside as an existing condition prior to [Hurricane Ida].” He also raised questions in his affidavit about inspections and replacement of the utility pole.

Mr. Kaiser attested to the increased flooding on the Four Point Road side of the levee and that to his knowledge, the subject utility pole had not been replaced from 2001 to 2005. He further noted the lack of guidewires on the pole. Mr. Epps corroborated the increased flooding on the Four Point Road side of the levee and Mr. Mouledoux's statements regarding fallen or broken utility poles on Four Point Road during previous storms. Mr. Epps attested that he personally saw the rot on the inside of the stump of the broken utility pole at issue. Four Point Road argued that the above evidence created a litany of questions of fact precluding summary judgment.

Additionally, in its opposition, Four Point Road objected to Mr. Peters’ affidavit as hearsay and improper summary judgment evidence under La. C.E. art. 801(C) and La. C.C.P. art. 967. It further objected to SLECA's report to the Louisiana Public Service Commission, Royal Engineering Consultants’ report, and the inspection report for the subject pole attached to Mr. Peters’ affidavit as improper summary judgment evidence under La. C.C.P. art. 966.

The summary judgment was heard on June 13, 2025. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for Four Point Road stated that there was no objection to Mr. Peters’ affidavit, but he maintained objections to the three above described attachments supporting the affidavit. Counsel for SLECA agreed with the trial court that the documents could be considered as business records made part of the affidavit of Mr. Peters as the operation manager of SLECA. Counsel further explained, however, that the documents were not necessary for the resolution of the motion for summary judgment, which turned solely on a lack of evidence of any actual or constructive notice of any defect or ruinous condition of the utility pole. After extensive argument, the trial court concluded that SLECA had produced evidence that the utility pole had been inspected and it had no reason to be aware of any issues concerning the integrity of the pole. While Four Point Road had presented unanswered questions, the trial court found it had failed to produce any factual evidence to the contrary or to show that it could meet its burden of proving constructive notice to SLECA of any defect in the utility pole. Thus, the trial court granted SLECA's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Four Point Road's claims. A written judgment in conformity with this ruling was signed on June 25, 2025.

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Four Point Road assigns the following errors:

1. The District Court erred when it violated La. C.C.P. art. 966 by giving credence to Matthew Peters’ Affidavit and Exhibits that were not properly before the court.

2. The District Court erred when it held that [SLECA] had met the requisite burden to prove they were entitled to the defense of force majeure without consideration of anticipated negligence.

3. The District Court erred in holding that no disputes of material fact remained.

4. Despite an additional party being identified in an affidavit, the District Court erred when it terminated any future discovery in granting Summary Judgment.

Assignments of error numbers one and four — objections to summary judgment evidence

As previously stated, at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment counsel for Four Point Road stated that there was no objection to Mr. Peters’ affidavit.⁴ However, counsel maintained his objections to the three attachments to the affidavit, which we now address in turn.⁵

First, SLECA's report to the Louisiana Public Service Commission regarding the damage to its infrastructure during Hurricane Ida is a business record produced by SLECA and Mr. Peters, in his role as the manager of operations for SLECA, attested that the content of said report is true and correct. We find this document to be competent summary judgment evidence as an attachment to Mr. Peters’ affidavit. We note, however, that the report is not necessary nor even relevant to the resolution of the motion for summary judgment as it merely details the overall damage to SLECA's power grid from the hurricane and in no way bears on SLECA's knowledge, actual or constructive, of the integrity of any single utility pole owned and maintained by SLECA. In this regard, we note that as the operations manager of SLECA during the hurricane, Mr. Peters would have had personal knowledge of the extent of the damage to the power grid to which he attested in his affidavit.

Second, Mr. Peters referenced and attached to his affidavit a graph prepared by Royal Engineering Consultants hired by SLECA to do a damage assessment of the power grid after the hurricane. As an unverified and unauthenticated document prepared by an outside source, the graph will not be considered by this Court. However, as with the SLECA's report to the Louisiana Public Service Commission, this report is not necessary for the resolution of the motion for summary judgment. Likewise, we find that Mr. Peters would have had personal knowledge of the extent of the damage to the power grid to which he attested in his affidavit. Further, we are not persuaded by Four Point Road's argument that this report introduces a new party, Royal Engineering Consultants, warranting further discovery and rendering summary judgment premature. The record reflects that Four Point Road had notice of the Royal Engineering Consultants graph eight months prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and Four Point Road does not dispute that no discovery regarding the Royal Engineering report was attempted during that time. Further, Four Point Road did not seek a continuance of the hearing on the motion summary judgment for the purpose of conducting additional discovery concerning Royal Engineering Consultants. We find no abuse of the trial court's broad discretion to regulate pre-trial discovery. See Elledge v. Becnel, 2022-0491 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/4/22), 354 So.3d 688, 692. Moreover, as explained above, the report is relevant only to the magnitude of the damage sustained by SLECA's power grid.

Third, Mr. Peters attested that the utility pole at issue passed an inspection in 2016 prior to Hurricane Ida, that he is familiar with the inspection process, and that the inspection was conducted in accordance with industry standards. Attached to his affidavit is an inspection report for the subject pole. For the same reasons expressed above, we find this document to be competent summary judgment evidence as an attachment to Mr. Peters’ affidavit, but also unnecessary for resolution of the motion for summary judgment.

Assignments of error numbers two and three — summary judgment

A ruling on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed under the de novo standard, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Painter v. Clouatre, 2024-0767 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/24), 403 So.3d 1217, 1226, writ not considered, 2025-00160 (La. 4/15/25), 406 So.3d 420, reconsideration denied, 2025-00160 (La. 9/10/25), 415 So.3d 127, citing Corbajal v. Chris Owens French Quarter Parade, LLC, 2024-00191 (La. 5/21/24), 385 So.3d 236, 237-38.

After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3); Cope v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & A&M College, 2025-0035 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/3/25), 417 So.3d 1048, 1055. If the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, he is not required to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense; instead, the mover must point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. The burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1).

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. La. C.C.P. art. 967(B); Painter, 403 So.3d at 1226-1227, citing Carbajal, 385 So.3d at 238. Once a motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the non-moving party's failure to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion. Painter, 403 So.3d at 1227.

The applicable substantive law determines materiality, so whether a particular fact in dispute is material can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Painter, 403 So.3d at 1227.

Generally, in an action for damages under Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2315 and 2316, the plaintiff has the burden of proving liability or negligence on the part of the defendant. In determining whether liability exists under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct in question was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff which the defendant breached, and that the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached. Johnson v. State Through Dep't of Transportation & Dev., 2017-0973 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/3/19), 275 So.3d 879, 892, writ denied, 2019-00676 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So.3d 970.

The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. La. C.C. art. 2317.1.

A defect is defined as a condition that creates an unreasonable risk of harm. Moory v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2004-0319, (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 906 So.2d 474, 480, writ denied, 2005-0668 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1076. Thus, in order to establish a claim of custodial liability pursuant to La. C.C. arts. 2317 and 2317.1, a plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) the property which caused the damage was in the “custody” of the defendant; (2) the property had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm to persons on the premises; (3) the unreasonably dangerous condition was a cause in fact of the resulting injury; and (4) the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk. Abolofia v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. & Agr. & Mech. Coll., 2014-0593 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/27/15), 2015 WL 782831, *2; Graupmann v. Nunamaker Family Limited Partnership, 2013-0580 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/16/13), 136 So.3d 863, 867.

We have conducted a de novo review of the record on summary judgment and find the following. As the movers on the motion for summary judgment, SLECA bore the initial burden of proof. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). However, because SLECA will not bear the burden of proof at trial, it was not required to negate all essential elements of Four Point Road's claim for damages based on SLECA's alleged negligence in failing to properly maintain the utility pole at issue. Rather, SLECA was required to point out an absence of factual support for one or more elements of Four Point Road's claim. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). SLECA satisfied its initial burden through the affidavit of Mr. Peters, which established the absence of evidence of SLECA's actual or constructive knowledge of any defect in the pole. Mr. Peters attested that the utility pole at issue passed inspection prior to Hurricane Ida and no complaints about the condition of the pole had been received by SLECA prior to the hurricane. Thus, SLECA produced factual evidence that it had no reason to believe the pole's integrity had been compromised by internal rot.

Faced with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the burden then shifted to Four Point Road. Summary judgment shall be granted unless Four Point Road produced factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that SLECA is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). In support of its opposition to the motion, Four Point Road attached affidavits indicating that the area where the pole was located was marsh and flooded more often than the other side of the levee system. In addition, Mr. Mouledoux and Mr. Epps attested that they saw rot inside the pole near the base where it snapped in the hurricane force winds. However, Four Point Road produced no evidence that SLECA had any reason to believe that the internal integrity of this particular utility pole was compromised, defective, or unreasonably dangerous prior to the hurricane. Indeed, in his deposition, even Mr. Mouledoux denied having noticed anything wrong with the utility pole prior to the hurricane.

We further note that in its memorandum below, during argument at the hearing on summary judgment, and in its brief on appeal, Four Point Road suggests many possible questions relative to its case. Critically, however, it has failed to provide any factual support or specific facts creating material issues of fact which would preclude summary judgment. For example, Four Point Road suggests that there could have been inadequacies in the utility pole inspection process, including the visual and sound inspection of the pole, but it failed to locate and depose the inspection company or individual inspector. The record before us is rife with opportunities not taken by Four Point Road to investigate and obtain factual support for the speculative issues it raises. Speculation and conjecture will not defeat a well-supported motion for summary judgment. In summary, after a thorough de novo review of the record, we find that Four Point Road failed to carry its burden on summary judgment and that SLECA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the summary judgment in favor of South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association, and dismissing with prejudice 1143 Four Point Road, LLC's claim against it, is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to 1143 Four Point Road, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The record indicates that the boat shed was built approximately 50 years prior to 2005 when Four Point Road purchased the boat shed and leased the land on which it was located.

3.   Both parties agreed that the photograph was not proper summary judgment evidence and it was not considered by the trial court. This ruling has not been raised as an issue in this appeal; therefore, the photograph is not considered by this Court and is not discussed herein.

4.   Thus, Four Point Road's argument to this Court regarding any objection to Mr. Peters’ affidavit will not be considered.

5.   The only documents that may be filed or referenced in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified medical records, certified copies of public documents or public records, certified copies of insurance policies, authentic acts, private acts duly acknowledged, promissory notes and assignments thereof, written stipulations, and admissions. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4)(a). The court shall consider only those documents filed or referenced in support of or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment but shall not consider any document that is excluded pursuant to a timely filed objection. Any objection to a document shall be raised in a timely filed opposition or reply memorandum. The court shall consider all objections prior to rendering judgment and shall specifically state on the record or in writing whether the court sustains or overrules the objections raised. La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(2).

THERIOT, J.