Cole C. Frazier

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v. Markel American Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment finding that the insured’s failure to cooperate violated the policy’s coverage terms and voided coverage.

The dispute arose from a commercial first-party property loss following Hurricane Ida. The insurer moved quickly to adjust the claim by retaining an independent adjuster and engineers to evaluate the damage to and value of the insured property. It also asked the insured to produce documentation needed to complete the adjustment, including records of installation costs, monthly revenues, and repair estimates. The insured did not respond.

Additionally, the insurer sent numerous emails over the course of the claim requesting information about (1) the costs the insured had incurred; (2) documentation supporting the income loss claim, along with quotes, estimates, and proposals for repairs; and (3) the scope of work for testing and repairs. However, most of these requests went unanswered.

Based on this evidence, the court determined that the insured violated the terms of the policy because it failed to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. Most notably, the insured obtained repair estimates and proposals from its own contractor and withheld them from the insurer until after suit was filed. The insured also never submitted a completed proof of loss, even though the policy required submission of such a document that included estimates and “other reasonable information” the insurer needed to settle the loss. These acts showed the insured failed to “cooperate with [the insurer] in performing all acts required by this policy.”

The insurer showed that it pursued the information diligently and that the insured’s breach was both material and prejudicial. The court found (1) the insurer had documented repeated, specific requests for nearly a year, (2) the withheld documents went directly to quantifying the loss, and (3) the insured’s noncompliance deprived the insurer of its right to investigate the insured’s claim.

As a result, the court granted summary judgment finding no genuine issue of material fact relating to the insured’s breach of the policy’s cooperation clause. The insured was precluded from bringing a breach of insurance contract claim and therefore, without a valid contractual claim, the insured also could not pursue a bad faith claim against the insurer.

References:

South Alexander Development I, LLC v. Markel American Insurance Co., CV 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, 2026 WL 1819120 (M.D. La. June 24, 2026).

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.

Although courts have described the outcome as “harsh,” a recent ruling shows that a judgment creditor can recover the full amount of an employee’s unpaid debt from an employer if that employer fails to comply with specific garnishment procedures.

A party that prevails in a lawsuit and is awarded damages is known as a judgment creditor. In order to collect on the judgment, Louisiana law allows a judgment creditor to garnish the wages of the judgment debtor, the party cast in judgment. Once a judgment against an employee is obtained, the judgement creditor may issue garnishment interrogatories to the employer requesting information related to the employee’s job, rate of compensation, manner of payment, and whether there are other judgments or garnishments affecting the employee’s compensation.

It is imperative that the employer file sworn answers to all garnishment interrogatories within 30 days from the date of service.^ Louisiana courts treat unsworn answers to interrogatories as a failure to answer,* and an employer’s failure to timely answer garnishment interrogatories can result in costly penalties. In fact, a Louisiana employer can be held liable for the full amount of the employee’s judgment if procedural requirements are not followed.

La. C.C.P. art. 2413(A) states that if the employer fails to answer the garnishment interrogatories within 30 days from the date of service, then the judgment creditor may proceed against the employer for the amount of the unpaid judgment, with interest and costs. La. C.C.P. art. 2413(B) provides that the employer must pay the entire amount of the judgment unless it proves the actual amount it owed to the employee at the trial on the contradictory motion. Regardless of the decision on the contradictory motion, La C.C.P. art. 2413(C) requires the employer to pay the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees of the judgment creditor.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently examined these procedures in Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams.^^ The judgment creditor in the Tower Credit case issued garnishment interrogatories to the judgment debtor’s employer. However, the employer failed to timely respond to garnishment interrogatories. When the judgment creditor filed a Motion for Judgment Pro Confesso against the employer to require it to appear and present evidence regarding the amount of wages it should have withheld after receiving the garnishment interrogatories, the employer failed to appear for the hearing.

Given the employer’s failure to timely respond to the interrogatories and its failure to appear for the hearing, the First Circuit found that the creditor was entitled to a judgment pro confesso against the employer for the entire amount of the employee’s debt. Citing the unique facts of the case, which included evidence that the judgment debtor/employee no longer worked for the employer cast in judgment, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently granted vacated part of the judgment pro confesso and remanded the matter for rehearing.**

However, this case shows that Louisiana courts will enforce La. C.C.P. art. 2413 and cast an employer in judgment for its employee’s debt, even though courts have described the statute’s penalties as “harsh.” Tower Credit shows that employers should respond to garnishment interrogatories within the timeframe provided by law. In the event the deadline is passed, La. C.C.P. art. 2413(B) requires the employer to appear for the judgment pro confesso hearing if it intends to argue it should not be indebted for the judgment. Failure to do both could result in the employer being held liable for the full amount of its employee’s unpaid debt.

References:

^ See La. C.C.P. art. 2412(D).

*See All Star Floor Covering, Inc. v. Stitt, 804 So. 2d 705 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001).

^^Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022-0106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/16/22), 352 So. 3d 1029, writ granted, judgment vacated in part, 2022-01556 (La. 2/7/23), 354 So. 3d 659.

**Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022-01556 (La. 2/7/23), 354 So. 3d 659.