Do You Have the “Right to Remain Silent” in Business Dealings?

Louisiana has updated its corporate laws by adopting legislation modeled off the Model Business Corporation Act ("MBCA"). The new set of laws is named "The Louisiana Business Corporation Act" and will replace Louisiana's Business Corporation Law, which was enacted in 1968. The change occurred on May 30, 2014 when the Governor signed HB319 into law as Act 328. The new provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2015.

The MBCA is a set of model laws created in 1950, and are regularly amended and updated by the American Bar Association's Committee on Corporate Laws. The MBCA is meant to govern the functioning of public and private corporations. It has been adopted in whole or in part by a majority of the states.

Representative Franklin J. Foil (R - Baton Rouge) originally introduced HB408 in the 2013 Regular Session to adopt laws modeled off the MBCA based on the recommendation of the Louisiana State Law Institute. However, this bill died toward the end of the session. Thereafter, Rep. Foil introduced HB319 during the 2014 Regular Session, which was passed, thereby adopting much of the MBCA.

The newly adopted laws constitute a comprehensive update to Louisiana's corporate law system and will bring substantial change in some areas. Merely by way of example, the law provides some protections to minority shareholders in closely-held corporation who are being "oppressed."

It will be interesting to see the extent to which Louisiana courts will seek guidance from the decisions of other states that have operated under similar laws for many years.

All claims against professional designers are perempted (extinguished) under La. R.S. 9:5607 five years after the project is completed with an exception for fraud. In cases of fraud, an otherwise untimely lawsuit can go forward. For this reason, plaintiffs often allege fraud when the claim may be perempted. This scenario was present in the recent First Circuit decision in Markiewicz v. Sun Constr., L.L.C, 2019-1590 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/18/20), 2020 WL 5587265. The decision helps to explain when a designer’s alleged conduct falls outside of ordinary negligence based upon the standard of care and becomes fraudulent.

Broadly, fraud is designed as “a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other.” La. C.C. art. 1953. Fraudulent intent or intent to deceive is a necessary element of a fraudulent misrepresentation. Therefore, fraud cannot be predicated on a mere mistake or negligence, however gross.

In Markiewicz, the plaintiff homeowners filed a class action lawsuit in 2006 arising from flooding of their neighborhood. Ten years later, plaintiffs added as defendants the engineers involved in the design of the drainage system, including the engineers who prepared the surveys for the development. Absent fraud, the newly added claims would be untimely. Plaintiffs alleged that the engineers fraudulently provided incorrect or misleading survey certificates, despite their knowledge that the certificates were incorrect.

The engineers filed a motion for summary judgment on peremption because more than five years had passed from the completion of their services. The engineers argued that plaintiffs could not prove fraud under facts of the case such that the fraud exception would not apply.

The Markiewicz court ruled for defendants. Although there was a dispute as to whether the engineers’ measurements were erroneous, the court found that plaintiffs failed to prove that the services were fraudulent. The plaintiffs provided no evidence that the engineers were aware of any discrepancy in preparing the surveys or that they knowingly misrepresented the surveys. As such, the court found that the fraud exception did not apply, and plaintiffs’ claims against the engineers were perempted. Through its analysis, the Markiewicz court made clear that labelling allegedly negligent conduct as fraudulent is insufficient to defeat a supported motion. While fraud may be established by circumstantial evidence, including highly suspicious facts and circumstances, the court found the record devoid of such facts.

Louisiana law protects building contractors from liability for past projects that otherwise could extend for an indefinite period of time. La. R.S. 9:2772 prohibits any lawsuit against a contractor for damages arising from a construction project five years after: (1) the date project acceptance was filed into the public records; or, if no acceptance was filed, (2) the date of occupancy. This five-year period is referred to as the "peremptive" period.

This law is broad enough to bar untimely claims of breach of contract and negligence, as well as failure to warn of dangerous conditions. It also covers all conceivable building activities: design, construction, consultation, planning, evaluation, construction administration, and land surveying. It applies both to residential and commercial construction. It also covers claims of property damage, personal injury, and wrongful death brought by any person. The only noted exception is where a contractor’s fraud caused the damages.

The law is meant to establish a specific date to cut off the contractor’s liability. Under the law, nothing can interfere with the running of a peremptive period. After it expires, the claim no longer exists.

Construction litigation in this area often focuses on commencement of the peremptive period. For instance, in Celebration Church, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, 16-245 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/16), the owner of a shopping center sued its property insurer for roof damage related to Hurricane Isaac. The insurer prevailed in defending the claim based on defective roof repairs made following Hurricane Katrina. The owner then filed suit against the roofer who made the repairs after Hurricane Katrina. To avoid the peremptive defense, the owner argued that peremption did not begin to run until substantial completion of the entire shopping center. The court rejected this argument and held that the law is specific in defining the date of commencement of the peremptive period. It began to run when the tenants first occupied the space. By the time suit was filed, the owner’s claim no longer existed.

Because construction defects may not surface for years, a claim may be barred before the owner even discovers the problem.