DONNELL v. HENDERSON REILLY BOUDREAUX SCHOONENBERG APLC (2026)

In this legal malpractice action, Plaintiff/Appellant, James F. Donnell, MD appeals a judgment in favor of Dr. Donnell and against Defendants/Appellees, Henderson, Reilly & Boudreaux, APLC and John D. Schoonenberg (“the legal defendants”), wherein Dr. Donnell was awarded $5,512.75, together with judicial interest thereon from the date of judicial demand until paid. Dr. Donnell also appeals a judgment rendered in favor of the legal defendants and against Dr. Donnell, which denied Dr. Donnell's motion for additur, or alternatively motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) or new trial. The legal defendants filed an answer to the appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment and deny the answer to the appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dr. Donnell was sued by a former patient for medical malpractice in a different lawsuit. The matter eventually proceeded to a four-day jury trial in May 2014, which concluded with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs of that lawsuit, Kimberly, Todd, and Gabrielle Thibodeaux (“the Thibodeauxs”), finding that Dr. Donnell had breached the applicable standard of care in his treatment of his patient, Kimberly, and that his breach caused injury to her. The jury awarded $60,000.00 for Kimberly's medical expenses, but it did not award general damages. On May 29, 2014, the trial court signed a judgment conforming to the jury verdict. Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 2015-0503 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/24/16), 189 So.3d 469, 473, writ granted, 2016-0570 (La. 6/3/16), 192 So.3d 756, and rev'd, 2016-0570 (La. 1/20/17), 219 So.2d 274.

After the May 29, 2014 judgment was rendered, the Thibodeauxs filed an appeal. Additionally, Dr. Donnell retained an attorney, John D. Schoonenberg, who was employed by Henderson, Reilly & Boudreaux, APLC, to file an appeal on his behalf. However, Mr. Schoonenberg failed to file Dr. Donnell's appeal and failed to file an answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal. On appeal, this court reversed the judgment insofar as it failed to award general damages to the Thibodeauxs. Thibodeaux, 189 So.3d at 480. Additionally, this court awarded $50,000.00 in general damages to Kimberly; $15,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Todd; and $5,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to their child, Gabrielle. Id. at 478-80.

The Thibodeauxs sought review by filing a writ of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court. On review, the supreme court found that because this court found manifest error in the jury's factual findings, this court should have performed a de novo review of damages under the principles outlined in Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987). The supreme court reversed this court's judgment and remanded the matter to this court for reconsideration of its decision under the principles set forth in Mart. See Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 2016-0570 (La. 1/20/17), 219 So.3d 274, 275.

On remand, this court increased the award, awarding $60,000.00 in general damages to Kimberly; $20,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Todd; and $7,500.00 in loss of consortium damages to Gabrielle. Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 2015-0503 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/27/17), 220 So.3d 862, writ granted, judgment aff'd as modified, 2017-0909 (La. 10/27/17), 227 So.3d 812 (per curiam). The Thibodeauxs again sought review of this court's decision. On review, the supreme court found this court abused its discretion in assessing the damages awarded on remand. After examining comparable awards in similar cases to determine the lowest amount that could have been reasonably awarded, the supreme court amended the awards, awarding $150,000.00 in general damages to Kimberly; $50,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Todd; and $25,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Gabrielle. Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 2017-0909 (La. 10/27/17), 227 So.3d 812, 813.

Dr. Donnell instituted the instant legal malpractice suit on January 5, 2017,¹ naming as defendants The Law Offices of Henderson, Reilly, Boudreaux & Schoonenberg, APLC and John D. Schoonenberg, Esq.² Following a jury trial, the jury found that an attorney-client relationship existed between Dr. Donnell and Mr. Schoonenberg, that Mr. Schoonenberg failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence required of him during his legal representation of Dr. Donnell, and that the failure of Mr. Schoonenberg to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence required of him during his legal representation of Dr. Donnell caused damage to Dr. Donnell. The jury awarded Dr. Donnell $5,512.75 in damages. A written judgment conforming to the jury's verdict was signed February 7, 2025. Dr. Donnell subsequently filed a motion for additur, a motion for JNOV, and a motion for new trial.³ The trial court signed a judgment denying the motion for additur, the motion for JNOV, and the motion for new trial on May 22, 2025.

Dr. Donnell appeals contending the following:

1. The trier of fact abused its discretion in failing to award damages to the extent of the injuries sustained by [Dr. Donnell] after rendering a verdict finding that J.D. Schoonenberg failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence required of him during his legal representation of [Dr. Donnell].

2. The amount of the award by the jury ($5,512.75) was not within the range of discretion and is abusively inadequate. This was manifestly erroneous and requires a de novo review. When Schoonenberg failed to take the appeal or file an answer to the Thibodeaux[s’] appeal as he agreed to do, the Court Appeal [ ] and the Supreme Court were constrained from altering the jury verdict in any manner favorable to [Dr. Donnell], but they [were not] constrained from increasing the verdict. Thus, [Dr. Donnell] lost the opportunity to pursue his claim and present his case and contest the damages that ultimately amounted to $196,126.71 (personally) and not $5,512.75, which amount was never prayed for in damages.

3. The trial court committed manifest error in denying [Dr. Donnell's] Motion for Additur, or Alternatively [Motion for JNOV] as to damages or for [a] New Trial.

The legal defendants answered the appeal, raising three assignments of error:

1. The jury erred in finding that the [legal] defendants[’] failure to file a Devolutive Appeal or Answer to Appeal [was] the cause of any damages sustained by Dr. Donnell, since an appeal or answer to appeal would not have changed the underlying outcome.

2. The [trial] court erred in denying the [legal] defendants[’] Exception of Peremption pursuant to La. [R.S.] 9:5605, raised at the conclusion of trial, because Dr. Donnell's own testimony showed he knew or should have known of Mr. Schoonenberg's alleged failure to Appeal or Answer Appeal and the impact of same, more than one year prior to the date Dr. Donnell filed this legal malpractice claim.

3. The jury erred in awarding Dr. Donnell the full amount of the legal bills charged by Mr. Schoonenberg in the underlying case, since Dr. Donnell never paid the full amount of those bills.

PEREMPTION

In the legal defendants’ second assignment of error, they assert that the trial court erred by denying their exception raising the objection of peremption submitted during the trial of the matter.⁴ Peremption is a period of time fixed by law for the existence of a right. The right is extinguished upon the expiration of the peremptive period. La. Civ. Code art. 3458; In re L.H., 2025-0625 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/17/25), ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2025 WL 3652688, *2. When the peremptive period has run, the cause of action itself is extinguished unless timely exercised. Id.

In the assignment of error, the legal defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their exception of peremption that was raised orally at the close of Dr. Donnell's evidence at the trial on the merits. The peremptory exception may be pleaded at any stage of the proceeding in the trial court prior to a submission of the case for a decision. La. Code Civ. P. art. 928(B). However, it is not proper to raise an exception of peremption via oral motion. All exceptions shall comply with Articles 853, 854, and 863, and, whenever applicable, with Articles 855 through 861. They shall set forth the name and surname of the exceptor, shall state with particularity the objections urged and the grounds thereof, and shall contain a prayer for the relief sought. La. Code Civ. P. art. 924. Therefore, the legal defendants’ orally raising an exception of peremption was not permissible.

Further, after trial, on February 5, 2025, the legal defendants filed an exception raising the objection of peremption, which was set for a hearing. Thereafter, Mr. Schoonenberg filed an opposition. The hearing on the exception was held on April 11, 2025, and the trial court signed a judgment on May 5, 2025, denying the exception. As stated above, the peremptory exception may be pleaded at any stage of the proceeding in the trial court prior to a submission of the case for a decision. La. Code Civ. P. art. 928(B). Here, the case was submitted on January 8, 2025. Therefore, the legal defendants’ exception, filed on February 5, 2025, was not timely. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the legal defendants exception raising the objection of peremption. Accordingly, we find no merit in this assignment of error.

LEGAL MALPRACTICE

In the legal defendants’ first assignment of error, they contend that the jury erred in finding that the legal defendants’ failure to file Dr. Donnell's appeal or an answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal was the cause of the damages sustained by Dr. Donnell.

A legal malpractice claim in Louisiana is a negligence claim, albeit a professional negligence claim, and thus derives from La. Civ. Code arts. 2315 and 2316. Guilbeau Marine, Inc. v. Ledet, 2023-0065 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/23), 375 So.3d 977, 985, writ denied, 2023-01369 (La. 12/19/23), 375 So.3d 411. A legal malpractice plaintiff must prove three elements to successfully bring a legal malpractice action: (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) negligent representation by the attorney or professional impropriety in the attorney's relationship with the client; and (3) loss caused by that negligence or misconduct. Failure to prove any one of these elements is fatal to the plaintiff's claim. Schroeder v. Waitz, 2025-0018 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/9/26), 2026 WL 819707, *3 (unpublished). An attorney is not required to exercise perfect judgment in every instance. Guilbeau Marine, Inc., 375 So.3d at 985.

In the instant case, the legal defendants do not dispute the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Dr. Donnell and Mr. Schoonenberg. Nor do the legal defendants dispute Mr. Schoonenberg's negligent representation of Dr. Donnell. Rather, in the answer to the appeal, the legal defendants argue the third element of legal malpractice has not been proven. The legal defendants contend the jury erred in finding that Mr. Schoonenberg's failure to file a devolutive appeal or answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal was the cause of any damages sustained by Dr. Donnell because an appeal or an answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal would not have changed the underlying outcome.

To meet the third element of legal malpractice i.e., loss caused by negligence or misconduct, a plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant's alleged negligence caused the plaintiffs loss. Schroeder, 2026 WL 819707 at *4. The proper method of determining whether an attorney's malpractice is a cause-in-fact of damage to his client is whether the performance of that act would have prevented the damage. Thus, simply establishing that an attorney was negligent, whether based upon the failure to conform to an ethical rule or some other standard, would not be sufficient to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. Teague v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2006-1266 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/7/09), 10 So.3d 806, 821, writ denied, 2009-1030 (La. 6/17/09), 10 So.3d 722.

In Ewing v. Westport Insurance Corporation, 2020-00339 (La. 11/19/20), 315 So.3d 175, 181, abrogated by 2022 La. Acts No. 285, § 1, effective July 1, 2022 ⁵ (quoting Jenkins v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 422 So.2d 1109, 1110 (La. 1982)), the supreme court explained:

Causation, of course, is an essential element of any tort claim. However, once the client has proved that his former attorney accepted employment and failed to assert the claim timely, then the client has established a prima facie case that the attorney's negligence caused him some loss, since it is unlikely the attorney would have agreed to handle a claim completely devoid of merit. In such a situation, a rule which requires the client to prove the amount of damages by trying the “case within a case” simply imposes too great a standard of certainty of proof. Rather, the more logical approach is to impose on the negligent attorney, at this point in the trial, the burden of going forward with evidence to overcome the client's prima facie case by proving that the client could not have succeeded on the original claim, and the causation and damage questions are then up to the jury to decide. Otherwise, there is an undue burden on an aggrieved client, who can prove negligence and causation of some damages, when he has been relegated to seeking relief by the only remedy available after his attorney's negligence precluded relief by means of the original claim.

At trial, the legal defendants introduced the trial transcript from the underlying medical malpractice case, this court's appellate opinions, and the supreme court's opinion. In the underlying medical malpractice case, in 2003, Kimberly, who was pregnant, saw Dr. Donnell as her obstetrician-gynecologist, and she was diagnosed with complete placenta previa. Thibodeaux, 219 So.3d at 275. On November 13, 2003, Kimberly was admitted to Terrebonne General Medical Center for treatment for vaginal bleeding secondary to the placenta previa, and she remained hospitalized until November 17, 2003. Id. Kimberly was readmitted to Terrebonne General Medical Center with renewed vaginal bleeding and contractions on November 19, 2003. Id.

On November 20, 2003, Dr. Donnell delivered the baby by cesarean section and performed a hysterectomy on Kimberly. Although the delivery was a success, the Thibodeauxs alleged that Dr. Donnell negligently lacerated Kimberly's bladder during the hysterectomy, which resulted in residual urologic problems and additional urologic surgery. Thibodeaux, 219 So.3d at 275. The Thibodeauxs later sued Dr. Donnell for medical malpractice. Thibodeaux, 189 So.3d at 473. The jury found that Dr. Donnell breached the applicable standard of care in Kimberly's treatment and that his breach caused injury to her and awarded Kimberly $60,000.00 in medical expenses. Id. at 475.

The Thibodeauxs appealed the jury's verdict on damages. On appeal, the Thibodeauxs contended the jury abused its discretion by awarding special damages but not awarding general damages to them, after rendering a verdict finding that Dr. Donnell breached the applicable standard of care. Id. at 474. This court concluded, after a de novo review of Kimberly's medical records, the expert medical testimony, and the lay testimony in the record, that the Thibodeauxs indisputably proved that Dr. Donnell's failed bladder repair caused Kimberly significant bladder scar tissue and a permanent decreased bladder capacity. Additionally, this court concluded that the Thibodeauxs indisputably proved that Dr. Donnell's injury to Kimberly also caused her general damages. Id. at 478. This court further found that given the medical and lay evidence in this case, the jury manifestly erred in finding that Dr. Donnell's failed bladder repair caused no damages to Todd and Gabrielle. Id. at 479.

The Thibodeauxs sought review of this court's decision, and after remanding the matter to this court with instruction to apply Mart, the supreme court later found this court abused its discretion in the damages awarded on remand. Thibodeaux, 219 So.3d at 282; Thibodeaux, 227 So.3d at 813. After examining comparable awards in similar cases to determine the lowest amount that could have been reasonably awarded, the supreme court amended the awards, awarding $150,000.00 in general damages to Kimberly; $50,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Todd; and $25,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Gabrielle. Thibodeaux, 227 So.3d at 813.

In the instant legal malpractice case, Dr. Donnell sought $196,126.71 in damages, the remaining balance of what is owed to the Thibodeauxs, but the jury only awarded him $5,512.75. We find implicit in the jury's decision not to award Dr. Donnell $196,126.71 in damages is a finding that Mr. Schoonenberg's failure to file an appeal or answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal was not the cause-in-fact of Dr. Donnell's $196,126.71 in damages. Therefore, we glean from the jury's verdict that it found that even if Mr. Schoonenberg would have filed an appeal, the outcome of the underlying medical malpractice case would not have changed. Nevertheless, the jury found that Mr. Schoonenberg's failure to file an appeal or an answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal caused Dr. Donnell damages, as he lost his right to assert his claims on appeal. From our independent review of the record, we cannot say that the jury's factual findings on cause-in-fact of damages is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

AMOUNT OF DAMAGES

These assignments of error relate to the amount of damages awarded to Dr. Donnell in the instant legal malpractice case, so they will be addressed together. In Dr. Donnell's first assignment of error, he argues the trier of fact abused its discretion in failing to award damages to the extent of the injuries sustained by him after rendering a verdict finding that Mr. Schoonenberg failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence required of him during his legal representation of him. In his second assignment of error, he pertinently asserts the amount of the award by the jury ($5,512.75) was not within the range of discretion and is abusively inadequate.

Conversely, in the legal defendants’ third assignment of error, they assert the jury erred in awarding Dr. Donnell the full amount of the legal bills charged by Mr. Schoonenberg in the underlying case, since Dr. Donnell never paid the full amount of those bills.

An award of damages is subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. Naquin v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, 2024-0303 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/30/24), 403 So.3d 1188, 1216, writ denied, 2025-00144 (La. 9/10/25), 415 So.3d 1279. During the hearing on the post-trial motions, counsel for Dr. Donnell argued Dr. Donnell did not have a claim for $5,512.75, but instead Dr. Donnell had a claim equal to the amount of the claim that the Thibodeauxs had in the original judgment. Counsel conceded that Dr. Donnell only paid Mr. Schoonenberg $2,900.00, although the amount billed was $5,512.75. The trial court observed “the jury obviously rejected the claim. If you're telling me the only amount that could have been awarded is that amount and they did not award that amount, it means they did not want to award that amount.” Counsel for the legal defendants noted that the jury heard evidence that the Thibodeauxs’ appeal had been successful, and they heard evidence that Dr. Donnell already owed over $100,000.00 before he even hired Mr. Schoonenberg. He asserted the jury did not award the amount requested by Dr. Donnell in the instant case, so his claim was rejected.

The evidence adduced at trial established that Mr. Schoonenberg billed Dr. Donnell $5,512.75 for his legal services. In awarding Dr. Donnell $5,512.75 in damages, the jury found the only damages sustained by Dr. Donnell due to Mr. Schoonenberg's failure to file an appeal or an answer to the Thibodeauxs’ appeal was the amount Mr. Schoonenberg billed Dr. Donnell for his legal services. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot say the jury abused its discretion by awarding Dr. Donnell $5,512.75 in damages. Accordingly, these assignments of error are without merit.

In Dr. Donnell's third assignment of error, he contends the trial court committed manifest error in denying his motion for additur, or alternatively motion for JNOV as to damages or motion for new trial.

If the trial court opines the verdict is so excessive or inadequate that a new trial should be granted for that reason only, it may indicate to the party or his attorney within what time he may enter a remittitur or additur. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1814. The remittitur or additur is to be entered only with the consent of the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be, as an alternative to a new trial, and is to be entered only if the issue of quantum is clearly and fairly separable from other issues in the case. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1814.

A new trial may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1973. Peremptory grounds for a trial court's grant of a new trial exist when the judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence, when a party discovers new evidence that could not have been discovered before or during trial, or when impartial justice was not done because the jury was bribed or behaved improperly. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1972; Bias v. Haley, 2023-0281(La. App. 1st Cir. 11/3/23), 383 So.3d 175, 187. Discretionary grounds for a new trial exist “in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law.” Id. The trial court's discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial is great, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.

A JNOV is a procedural device authorized by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1811, by which the trial court may modify the jury's finding of fault or damages, or both, to correct a legally erroneous jury verdict. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1811(F); Barnett v. Woodburn, 2020-0675 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/16/21), 324 So.3d 641, 650. A JNOV is warranted when the facts and reasonable inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. Barnett, 324 So.3d at 650. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. Id. When JNOV is denied, the appellate court simply reviews the record to determine whether there is legal error or whether the trier of fact committed manifest error. Id.

We find no legal error or that the jury committed manifest error in awarding Dr. Donnell damages based upon the amount the legal defendants billed him; therefore, we do not find the trial court erred in denying Dr. Donnell's motion for JNOV. Furthermore, Dr. Donnell has not sufficiently stated a ground for which a motion for new trial shall be granted. Therefore, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dr. Donnell's motion for new trial or motion for additur. Accordingly, we find no merit in this assignment of error.

COST OF THE APPEAL

In the legal defendants’ fourth assignment of error, they requested that all court costs and appellate costs be awarded to them. Generally, the party cast in judgment should be assessed with court costs. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1920. Article 1920 further provides that except as otherwise provided by law, the court may render judgment for costs, or any part thereof, against any party as it may consider equitable. Anglin v. Anglin, 2009-0844 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/16/09), 30 So.3d 746, 753. The trial court may even assess costs against a party who prevails to some extent on the merits. On appeal, the trial court's assessment of costs will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Id. at 753-54.

In the instant case, the legal defendants were cast with a judgment against them. Given that we have affirmed the trial court's judgment, we do not find the trial court's assessment of costs was an abuse of discretion. Further, we find the legal defendants shall be taxed with the costs of this appeal. Accordingly, we find no merit in this assignment of error.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's February 7, 2025 judgment awarding Plaintiff/Appellant, James F. Donnell, MD, $5,512.75 in damages and May 22, 2025 judgment denying his motion for additur, motion for judgment nothwithstanding the verdict, and motion for new trial. Additionally we deny the answer to the appeal filed by Defendants/Appellees, Henderson, Reilly & Boudreaux, APLC and John D. Schoonenberg. The costs of this appeal are assessed to the Defendants/Appellees Henderson, Reilly & Boudreaux, APLC and John D. Schoonenberg, Esq.

JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Dr. Donnell's petition for damages has a fax-file date of January 5, 2016, but this court confirmed that the petition was actually filed on January 5, 2017.

2.   At trial, Mr. Schoonenberg clarified that he was employed by The Law Offices of Henderson, Reilly & Boudreaux, APLC. He testified that he was never an owner of the firm or a partner in the firm.

3.   The notice of appeal only refers to the judgment denying the motion for additur, motion for JNOV, and motion for new trial. However, the assignments of error set forth in Dr. Donnell's brief clearly challenge the judgment on the merits relative to damages, as well as the judgment denying his motion for additur, motion for JNOV, and motion for new trial. Generally, where it is clear from the appellant's brief that the appellant intended to appeal a judgment on the merits, along with a judgment denying a motion for new trial, an appellate court will consider the appeal to be an appeal of the judgment on the merits even though the notice of appeal only refers to the judgment denying the motion for new trial. Cregg v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2023-0127 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/1/24), 385 So.3d 280, 286, writ denied, 2024-00409 (La. 6/5/24), 385 So.3d 1158. Accordingly, we will consider this matter as an appeal from both judgments.

4.   If we determine that Dr. Donnell's legal malpractice claim is perempted or reverse on the issue of liability, we may pretermit Dr. Donnell's assignments of error, so we first address the legal defendants’ second and first assignments of error.

5.   2022 La. Acts No. 285, § 1 enacted La. R.S. 9:5605.2, which provides:In any action for damages by a client against an attorney, the client's recovery against the attorney shall be limited to the amount of damages which the attorney shows by a preponderance of the evidence would have been the maximum amount of damages that the client could have collected in the client's underlying action in which he was represented by the attorney.Pursuant to 2022 La. Acts No. 285, § 1, “[t]he provisions of this Act are intended to legislatively overrule the holding that collectability of damages against the tortfeasor in an underlying lawsuit is not an affirmative defense to a legal malpractice action, as held in the Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Ewing v. Westport Ins. Co., 315 So.3d 175 (La. 2020).” Nevertheless, we agree with the Fifth Circuit's finding in Webber v. Continental Casualty Company, 2024-378 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2/11/25), 2025 WL 463510, *9 (unpublished), that La. R.S. 9:5605.2 effects a substantive change in the law and the collectability rule established therein may not be applied to Dr. Donnell's cause of action in this case, which was asserted before the effective date of La. R.S. 9:5605.2.

FIELDS, J.

Edwards, J. concurs without reasons