Category: Summary Judgment

Keogh Cox Obtains Summary Judgment in Premises Liability Action

03.31.2026

The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling that granted summary judgment in a premises liability case filed following an accident that occurred at the LSU Hilltop Arboretum. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently denied writs seeking review of the lower courts’ rulings. Keogh Cox attorneys, Brian T. Butler and C. Reynolds LeBlanc, defended the case.

In Hebert v. Louisiana State Univ. Sys. Bd. of Supervisors Through Louisiana State Univ., the plaintiff went to the LSU Hilltop Arboretum to attend a wedding. Before the wedding, she went to the ladies’ room located in the outdoor pavilion area. The door to the restroom is controlled by an automatic door closer. The plaintiff alleged that the door began to close with “excessive force” when she exited the ladies’ room, and her finger was injured when it slid into the hinge-side of the door.

The plaintiff claimed the automatic door closer was defective because it was not properly adjusted at the time of the accident. The plaintiff retained an expert professional engineer to support her claims. The expert inspected the door and the door closer approximately 19 months after the incident. He testified that when he inspected the door, it was closing too fast, was out of adjustment, and had been improperly maintained. The plaintiff argued these findings showed the door was also defective at the time of the accident.

The expert also said the doors should have been inspected and adjusted every six months. The plaintiff argued the alleged problem with the door would have been discovered if it was inspected as her expert recommended.

Keogh Cox filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the defendants. First, we argued the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that the door was defective on the date of the accident. While the expert opined the door was defective when it was inspected nineteen months after the accident, the plaintiff had no evidence to show the alleged defect existed at the time of the accident. Keogh Cox asserted that the expert’s testimony claiming a defect was pure speculation. The court agreed and found the plaintiff failed to show the door presented an unreasonable risk of harm.

Second, we argued the plaintiff could not show LSU had prior notice that the door was defective at the time of the accident. As the door to the primary restroom on the premises, it was frequently used. There was no evidence of any prior complaints or reports of problems with the door before the accident. The plaintiff argued that notice could be found because LSU did not have a set inspection plan for the door as her expert recommended.

The court rejected this argument, stating “The opposite is true; in the absence of other facts such as recorded complaints about a defect or hazard, the lack of a plan of inspection implies that the public entity has no knowledge of dangerous defects or conditions.” Thus, the court found the plaintiff failed to show LSU had notice of the alleged problem with the door.

Reference:

Hebert v. Louisiana State Univ. Sys. Bd. of Supervisors Through Louisiana State Univ., 2025-0246 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/7/25), 424 So. 3d 809, writ denied, 2025-01542 (La. 2/10/26), 425 So. 3d 1205.

Court Holds Knowledge of a Condition Does Not Equal Knowledge that Condition Is Unreasonably Dangerous

03.11.2026

In Webber v. City of Shreveport, No. 56,705-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. Dec. 17, 2025), the Louisiana Second Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a trip-and-fall case involving a cracked sidewalk.

The plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell over an uneven area of the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s business. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish (1) a defect creating an unreasonable risk of harm or (2) the defendant knew or should have known of any defect. The defendant produced evidence to show it had no notice of any defect and no prior accidents in the area where the plaintiff fell. The defendant also produced photographs showing no holes in the area and no differences in elevation exceeding one inch.

In support of her claims, the plaintiff provided evidence including testimony from a corporate representative of the defendant who admitted to knowledge of cracks in the sidewalk prior to the plaintiff’s accident.

However, the court importantly distinguished that knowledge of a condition is not the same as knowledge of an unreasonably dangerous condition. The defendant maintained that not all cracks in sidewalks present unreasonably dangerous conditions. It also offered proof that the subject portion of the sidewalk was traveled every day as the building’s main passage. There were no prior complaints regarding its condition, nor were there any prior accidents.

Based upon this evidence, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the cracks in the sidewalk were unreasonably dangerous or that the defendants had any actual or constructive notice of the defect’s existence. Summary judgment was affirmed in the defendant’s favor.

Reference: Webber v. City of Shreveport, 56,705 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/17/25), 425 So. 3d 485.

Court Finds Real Estate Agents Are Not Required to Research the Truthfulness of Their Client’s Representations

02.05.2026

In Smith v. Grantham, homebuyers sued the sellers for alleged failure to disclose prior flooding of the home. The buyers also sued the sellers’ real estate agent for negligent misrepresentation, arguing the realtor knew or should have known of a prior history of flooding. The plaintiff referenced the previous sellers’ property disclosure documents located in the MLS listing database, which disclosed a prior flooding incident. However, the property disclosure document that the realtor received from her clients denied any prior flooding of the property or structure.

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the sellers’ agent, noting that her clients represented in their property disclosure document that the property had never flooded, and she had no actual knowledge contradicting their representation. The Court stated that under La. R.S. 9:3894(B), a real estate agent is relieved of liability for providing false information furnished by her client if she did not have actual knowledge that the information was incorrect. The court held that imposing a higher duty on a real estate agent would improperly “create a situation in which the agent had to independently verify information before conveying it to the buyer.”

Reference:

Smith v. Grantham, 93-0881 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/4/24), 394 So.3d 316.

Court Finds University Not Liable for Criminal Act of its Student

10.07.2025

A Louisiana court recently granted a motion for summary judgment in a case involving third-party criminal activity on a university campus. The motion initially was denied, but the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the motion for reconsideration in light of its ruling in Evans v. Abubaker, Inc. After considering Evans in the context of a claim brought against an institution of higher learning, the court found Grambling University had no duty to provide additional security measures and could not have done anything within its scope of duty to prevent the murder of one of its students. See Augman v. Grambling State University.

In Augman, the plaintiff’s son, a student at Grambling University, was fatally shot at a party on the Grambling campus by another Grambling University student. The established facts confirmed the social gathering was on campus, that alcohol was consumed at the party, and that guns were present. In applying Evans to a higher education context and granting Grambling University’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Third Judicial District Court reasoned:

There are allegations of breached policies by Grambling, i.e., allowing alcohol consumption on campus, allowing a pop-up party, and not searching for weapons in all the dorm rooms. Despite those allegations, there is no evidence presented in this summary judgment that shows that by following any of those policies to the T, Grambling would have prevented this incident. Likewise, the evidence presented on summary judgment does not show that there are additional security measures that Grambling could have taken to prevent this tragedy.

There is no indication Grambling had any duty to provide any additional security measures in this case. Likewise, there is no evidence presented that Grambling could have done anything within its duty or scope of duty, analyzed with regard to Evans, to prevent this tragedy.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Evans explained that preventing third party criminal activity by someone who intentionally engages in criminal conduct is not within the scope of duty of a business owner. The Evans court held, “Some risks that arise because of a defendant’s conduct are not within the scope of the duty owed to a particular plaintiff because they are unforeseeable.” Augman applied Evans’ reasoning in a higher education/alleged negligence on campus context and dismissed the claims brought against Grambling University because preventing the shooting of one student by another student on its campus was not within Grambling’s scope of duty.

Just one month after the Augman ruling, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued the opinion of Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc. For more detailed analysis of this case, see a July 28, 2025, Keogh Cox blog by John P. Wolff III. In Campbell, the Supreme Court did not modify the duty/risk analysis but clarified the separate analyses of “duty” and “scope of duty”, concluding that the scope of the duty owed by the defendant hotel did not encompass the risk of the harm and injury suffered by the plaintiff. Again, the Campbell Court focused on “foreseeability” of the criminal activity and considered evidence that the plaintiff’s own actions placed him in the path of peril.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s reasoning in Campbell echoes its decision in Evans, suggesting that the issue of “scope of duty” for third-party criminal activity on university campuses analyzed in Augman would apply in cases involving claims against other institutions of higher learning as well.

References:

Evans v. Abubaker, Inc., 2023-00955 (La. 5/10/24), 384 So.3d 853.

Augman v. Grambling State University, Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln, Supplemental Summary Judgment Ruling with Reasons for Ruling, Feb. 07, 2025.

Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., 2024-00840 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So.3d 573.

Third-Party Criminal activity: Is Summary Judgment Available in a Premises Liability case?

07.28.2025

The liability of a premises owner for third-party criminal acts has been the subject of many decisions issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court. But recently, the Court clarified how to analyze this issue in the context of summary judgment. In Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc. (Windsor Court), the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and held that Windsor Court was not liable for a robbery that occurred in its courtyard.

The factual background is simple: Campbell was a frequent guest at the Windsor Court. He decided to approach a vehicle near the entrance to the courtyard when he pulled a “substantial amount of cash” to show the female occupants in the vehicle. He placed the money back in his pocket and talked with them for one minute and forty-six seconds. When he pulled the cash from his pocket a second time, one of the occupants grabbed the cash and the vehicle sped away dragging him with it. Campbell then sued the Windsor Court alleging negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, failure to ensure the safety of its guests, etc.

The importance of this decision is found in how the Court analyzed the case to reach its conclusion that summary judgment was proper: The Court noted that it was not modifying prior duty/risk analysis but was clarifying how the analysis is to be conducted—The issues of “duty” and “scope of duty” are separate inquiries that require separate analysis.

In Campbell, the Court acknowledged that “duty” is a question of law for the court. It then concluded that “(w)hether a particular risk falls within the scope of that duty, by contrast, ‘is fact sensitive and ultimately turns on a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of that duty.’” However, the court continued, “‘(t)he determination of legal cause/scope of the duty involves a purely legal question.’” The Court conducted an historical analysis noting that prior decisions had “merged the concept of duty and scope of duty into a single consideration.”

On the threshold question of duty, the Court acknowledged that in the context of third-party criminal activity, Windsor Court, as an innkeeper, owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its patrons from criminal acts of third parties. Having found this duty, the Court then concluded that “Campbell cannot meet the ‘scope of the duty’ element of his claim.” In other words, “the scope of the duty owed by the Windsor Court did not encompass the risk of the particular harm and Injury Mr. Campbell suffered.”

Here the court asked whether this particular risk and injury were “foreseeable.” The Court examined multiple factors to find that the robbery was not foreseeable, but the Court further noted “perhaps even more important to our decision is the manner in which the robbery occurred.” Campbell was not unexpectedly accosted, but his own actions placed him in peril. As such, the Court found no “ease of association” between Windsor Court’s duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its guests and the risk that the guest would voluntarily approach an unknown vehicle and flash a sizable pile of cash.

Justice Crain concurred in the opinion and noted that “scope of duty can be resolved on summary judgment if reasonable persons could not disagree that the manner of the injury is either within or beyond the scope of the duty.” Justice Crain also noted that the manner of injury must be analyzed in the context of “foreseeability” from the perspective of the premises owner and have an “ease of association” between the duty and the manner of injury—this analysis is necessary to “avoid making a defendant the insurer of all persons against all harms.” Thus, he agreed with the majority that Campbell was unable to establish the scope of duty element.

Reference:

Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., 2024-00840 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So. 3d 573.

Courts Address Circumstances that Support Summary Judgment Dismissing Claims of Bad Faith Against Insurers

07.08.2025

Courts around Louisiana continue to address factual scenarios for when summary judgment on an insured’s first party bad faith claim may be appropriate.

In Creamer Brothers Inc. et al. v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, the federal court for the Western District of Louisiana addressed an insured’s claim for bad faith penalties and attorney’s fees arising out of an insurance claim for damages sustained in a February 2021 ice storm. The pertinent timeline is as follows:

February 22, 2021: Date of Loss/Ice Storm
February 26, 2021: Adjuster inspects property
April 9, 2021: Adjuster completes estimate
April 15, 2021: Insurer issues payment
August 6, 2021: Insured submits damages estimate
August 26, 2021: Insurer reinspects property with engineer
September 24, 2021: Engineer submits report to Insurer
October 7, 2021: Insurer prepares new estimate
October 11, 2021: Insurer tenders supplemental payment
October 12, 2022: Suit filed

The insurer argued summary judgment was appropriate because its damage assessment created a reasonable, well-founded dispute regarding the extent of damage caused by the ice storm. Plaintiff disagreed, arguing bad faith attached because the insurer relied solely on its own expert reports which they argued amounted to an investigation that was so inadequate it could be deemed unreasonable.

The Court sided with the insurer, granting its summary judgment. In so holding, the Court relied on the portion of La. R.S. 22:1892 which provides an insurer’s conduct must be “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause” for bad faith to attach. Specifically, the Court stated, “the fact that the parties’ experts reached different conclusions in their respective assessments gives rise to a dispute in the extent of Plaintiffs’ coverage, but does not illustrate a genuine issue of fact as to General Casualty’s ‘bad faith.’”

The Court noted the insurer sufficiently communicated with the insured, provided the insured with multiple expert reports containing their data and conclusions, and “ultimately made payments to Plaintiffs in accordance with those conclusions.” Plaintiff failed to point to evidence General Casualty’s conduct was arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, “despite yielding unsatisfactory results.”

In a case out of the Eastern District, Gentilly, LLC v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., the Court similarly relied on plaintiff’s failure to establish a general issue of material fact to show the insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.” The Gentilly case arose out of the plaintiff’s insurance claim for damages sustained to its commercial shopping center during Hurricane Ida. The parties engaged in a series of inspections, estimates, expert reports, payments, and supplemental payments over the course of about thirteen months, followed by several months of inactivity, then another period of investigation and adjustment over the course of about nineteen months.

Plaintiff argued the insurer’s 43-day delay in its first payout, failure to have an engineer inspect the property for a year, and gross under-evaluation of the damages as evidenced by its supplemental tender supported its bad faith claim. The Court disagreed.

In support of its conclusion, the Court noted the insurer advised plaintiff the inspection would take multiple days, and the delay in issuing payment arose out of the inspectors’ availability. The Court noted the insurer’s actions were “consistently in line with its expert appraisals.” In conclusion, the Court stated, “[t]hough the payout process was protracted by the scope and complexity of the insured loss, plaintiff fails to raise a genuine issue of material facts indicating that State Farm’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.”

Louisiana courts have not established a bright-line rule for determining when summary judgment is appropriate on an insured’s bad faith claim. However, these cases seem to suggest that continued adjustment over a period of time may not give rise to bad faith claims where an insured cannot cite to evidence an insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.”

References:

Creamer Brothers Inc. et al. v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, No. 22-cv-6110, 2025 WL 818579 (W.D. La. Mar. 13, 2025).

Gentilly, LLC v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 23-cv-262, 2024 WL 5246606 (E.D. La. Dec. 30, 2024).

Keogh Cox Secures Dismissal of Premises Liability Case

03.17.2025

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment Keogh Cox obtained in Clark v. Premier Automotive Management, LLC, finding the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence failed to establish an unreasonable risk of harm caused her to fall.

In Clark, the plaintiff claimed she was injured after slipped and fell in a puddle of water in a service garage. Keogh Cox attorneys Chad A. Sullivan and Cole C. Frazier filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants in response. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof to establish that standing water or a hazardous condition caused her fall. Specifically, the defendants maintained that the plaintiff could not establish (1) an unreasonable risk of harm existed within the garage or (2) the puddle of water existed on the garage floor for an extended period of time.

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that it rained earlier in the day, that she was walking quickly before she fell, and that she was wearing flip flops. The plaintiff also testified she assumed she fell in a puddle of water because her back was damp after her fall. She described the amount of water under her shoes as the size of a “softball.”

The defendants also attached the affidavits of two employees who worked at the service garage on the day of the incident. The affidavits acknowledged wet conditions on the day of the incident but denied any prior complaints or accidents in the area. The affidavits also established that the plaintiff fell in an uncovered area of the garage that slopes downward. Thus, there was no possibility for standing water or puddles to collect.

Based upon this evidence, the appellate court found that the defendants satisfied their burden of proof to show there was no unreasonable risk of harm. The court stated the burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish that there was an unreasonable risk of harm and thus establishing a genuine issue of material fact. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden because all her arguments were based upon conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. To support her claims, the plaintiff could only cite to the “possibility” of the existence of standing water or puddles. As such, the plaintiff only speculated whether a hazardous substance or an unreasonable risk of harm caused her fall. Such speculation was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

In so holding, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that Keogh Cox obtained through summary judgment.

References:

Clark v. Premier Auto. Mgmt., LLC, 2024-0397 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/25), — So.3d —, 2025 WL 451473.

Court holds real estate agents representing sellers are not required to investigate the seller’s representations about the property.

08.26.2024

In Casbon v. K.W.E.J., LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty, et al, the buyer of a home sued her real estate agent for the seller’s alleged misrepresentation of the home’s living area square footage. The facts of this case are unusual because the seller’s representation was based on a prior appraisal report, and accurately reflected the home’s square footage as stated in that report. Also, the buyer financed the purchase, and her lending institution appraised the home again, which resulted in a nearly identical living area square footage calculation.

The plaintiff sought to refinance about a year after buying the home. She used a different lending institution, which retained a different appraiser. The house included a sunroom which had been converted from a porch. The appraiser chose to classify the sunroom as something other than standard living area. As a result, the appraisal report stated the home’s living area square footage was several hundred square feet smaller than the prior appraisal reports, and the plaintiff was not approved for the refinance. The plaintiff sued her real estate agent on the ground that the agent failed to verify the living area square footage before plaintiff purchased the home.

The defendant agent filed summary judgment, arguing she did not owe the plaintiff a duty to investigate or confirm the home’s square footage. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, finding an issue of fact regarding the classification of the sunroom, specifically “whether it is living area or not living area.”

Reversing the Trial Court, the Court of Appeal granted summary judgment in favor of the real estate agent. The Court noted prior caselaw establishing that agents are not required to confirm square footage as represented by a property owner by measuring or otherwise researching the accuracy of the seller’s representation. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the issue here was how the sunroom was classified rather than how the room was measured. To the Court, this was a “distinction without a difference.”

The Court applied the standard rule that real estate agents only are required to disclose defects which are known or should be known to them. Additionally, the purchase agreement expressly put the obligation to verify the seller’s representation of living area on the buyer. Thus, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.

Case reference: Casbon v. K.W.E.J, LLC, et al, 23-321 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/4/23), 375 So.3d 524.