GUIDRY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (2021)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Writ granted. Plaintiffs filed this suit alleging defendant breached an insurance contract by failing to tender uninsured or underinsured motorist (UM) benefits in response to a formal demand. The alleged cause of action arose after the expiration of the limited period of time granted plaintiffs to amend their petition in a previous proceeding, which was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to defendant's exception of no cause of action. See Guidry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 18-275 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/18), 263 So. 3d 943, 948, writ denied, 19-0223 (La. 5/20/19), 272 So. 3d 535 (Guidry I). Defendant asserts the judgment in Guidry I bars the present suit under res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata is stricti juris; any doubt must be resolved against its application. See Kelty v. Brumfield, 633 So. 2d 1210, 1215 (La.1994). The trial court found “exceptional circumstances” warranted relief from res judicata pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4232A(1). This statutory exception gives the court discretion to balance the principle of res judicata with the interests of justice. See La. R.S. 13:4232, Comment--1990; Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 14-0256 (La. 12/9/14), 156 So. 3d 645, 647. Because plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action arose after the opportunity to amend the petition in Guidry I expired, application of res judicata will effectively deprive plaintiffs of any opportunity to pursue it. In the interest of justice, these exceptional circumstances warrant relief from the res judicata effect of the Guidry I judgment. The court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court's judgment.¹

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT REVERSED; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED; CASE REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In reaching this conclusion, we express no opinion on the correctness of the holding in Guidry I that a plaintiff, to state a cause of action for UM benefits, must allege the UM insurer breached the insurance contract. That issue is not before the court.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket.