Bad Faith Action Brought Against an Insurer Less than Ten Years after the Date of Loss Dismissed As Prescribed

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that an insurance agent's negligent handling of a claim did not justify an award for mental anguish in Prest v. Louisiana Citizens Property Corp., 2012-0513 (La. 12/4/12). In Prest, it was alleged that the agent negligently failed to process a request for increased insurance sent more than 10 days prior to Hurricane Katrina.

Based upon representations from their agent, plaintiffs believed their property was insured up to the requested amounts for Katrina-related damages. However, the insurance company denied the additional coverage because the request for additional coverage was not reviewed.

The plaintiffs filed suit and settled the claim for insurance benefits. They reserved in the settlement the right to pursue a negligence claim against their insurance agent and took that claim to trial.

At trial, the Trial Court found the agent negligent and awarded damages to include a $75,000 award for "frustration, inconvenience and mental anguish." The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court likewise upheld the finding of negligence. However, it reversed the award for mental damages.

Generally, if a defendant's conduct is merely negligent and only causes mental disturbance without physical injury, the defendant is not liable for damages. Moresi v. State, 567 So. 2d 1081, 1095 (La. 1990). An exception to this rule exists when there is a likelihood of genuine or serious mental distress arising from "special circumstances."

The Supreme Court did not feel that the facts involving the additional insurance created "special circumstances" sufficient to disregard the general rule that emotional damages are not recoverable in the absence of physical injury. In its ruling, the Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs were likely stressed and inconvenienced by the insurer's failure to pay. Nevertheless, the Court did not find that the plaintiffs' stress was any greater than that experienced by a host of Louisiana citizens affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright protection “subsists in any original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now know or later developed, from which they can be perceived or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”^ The Act goes on to state that works that may receive copyright protection are not limited to script or printed material but may include “any physical rendering of the fruits of creative intellectual or aesthetic labor.”^

Throughout its history, and despite the Act’s somewhat archaic language, copyright law has proven to be adaptable enough to cover all manner of works created with new and emerging technologies. However, the traditional understanding of copyright law is being challenged by the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and its ability to produce new creations.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia. recently ruled that works created autonomously by AI are not susceptible of copyright protection. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, Stephen Thaler appealed an administrative decision by the United States Copyright office denying his application to register the copyright for an image generated by an AI program he developed. The court’s decision examined the meaning of what it means to be an “author,” as defined by the Copyright Act and held that only works of human authorship are susceptible of copyright protection under U.S. law.*

The court compared the issue to a case from 1884 that examined whether copyright protection could extend to the then-cutting edge field of photography. In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, it was argued that a photograph should not qualify as a protected work because it was created by a camera. The US Supreme Court disagreed and held that while a camera may generate a “mechanical reproduction” of a scene, it does so only after the photographer develops a “mental conception” of the photograph^^. The court reasoned that the technology used to create the work was immaterial so long as there was human involvement in and creative control over the work.

In a later case, the US Ninth Circuit examined a case in which a crested macaque monkey took a photograph of himself, and various parties attempted to file suit on the monkey’s behalf to confirm copyright protection for the monkey’s photograph.** While the case was decided on standing grounds, the court considered whom the Copyright Act was designed to protect and concluded that the act was designed solely to protect humans.

The Thaler court identified no authority supporting copyright protection in any work originating from a non-human.* However, the issue presented in Thaler was limited to copyright protections for a work created solely by an AI, absent any human input. Therefore, it remains to be seen how courts will address issues related to copyright protection for images that blend human and AI origins.

We stand in a new frontier in both technology and copyright law. As artists and developers increasingly use AI as a tool, the increased distance between human creativity and the final product will present challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to afford these creations protection under copyright law.*

References:

^17 U.S.C § 102(a)

* Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-CV-01564-BAH, R. Doc. 24 (Filed 08/18/23).

^^ Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 59 (1884).

** Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9^th Cir. 2018).

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the global economy. Louisiana was not spared, and many businesses had to close as sales to their customers slowed or stopped altogether. Not surprisingly, the question arose regarding whether business interruption insurance would provide coverage to businesses in this situation. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently was asked this question in Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London and found that the policy at issue did not provide such coverage.

The mayor of New Orleans issued a proclamation on March 16, 2020, that prohibited most public and private gatherings. This applied to restaurants, whose business initially was limited to takeout and delivery services. Before the pandemic, Oceana Grill, a restaurant located in the French Quarter, could serve up to 500 customers at one time. However, it had to limit its business to takeout and delivery services when the mayor’s proclamation was announced. Because of social distancing guidelines, it remained at 60% or less capacity throughout the pandemic.

Oceana maintained a commercial insurance policy with loss of business income coverage and filed suit to request a declaratory judgment that the “policy provides business income coverage from the contamination of the insured premises by COVID-19.” Oceana’s insurer argued that there was no coverage under the policy because COVID-19 did not cause “direct physical loss of or damage to property” under the policy’s terms.

The trial court denied Oceana’s request for declaratory relief at trial. The appellate court reversed and found the policy’s terms ambiguous because it held “direct physical loss” could mean loss of use of the property. Because the pandemic prevented the full use of the property due to capacity limitations, the appellate court found coverage was triggered.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the appellate court’s decision, finding its focus on the use of the property to be misguided. The Court found that suspension of operations “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property,” as defined by the policy, required “the insured’s property to sustain a physical, meaning tangible or corporeal, loss or damage.” The Court noted that the restaurant’s physical structure was not lost or damaged because of the pandemic. COVID-19 restrictions did not cause damage or loss that was physical in nature. Therefore, the policy did not provide coverage for loss of business income.

Whether a policy affords coverage depends on the terms and conditions of each policy and the facts of each case. However, in light of this decision, businesses with insurance policies that include provisions with language like that at issue in Cajun Conti should not anticipate coverage for loss of business income allegedly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case References:

Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 2022-01349 (La. 3/17/23), 2023 WL 2549132.