Opinion
2015 CA 1759
06-03-2016
STEPHEN ROCKENBAUGH v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
S. Bradley Rhorer Alexander T. Reinboth Zachary S. Walker Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Stephen Rockenbaugh Andrew W. Eversberg Sarah Eilts Assad Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER C636758 HONORABLE JANICE CLARK, JUDGE S. Bradley Rhorer
Alexander T. Reinboth
Zachary S. Walker
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant
Stephen Rockenbaugh Andrew W. Eversberg
Sarah Eilts Assad
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee
State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, AND THERIOT, JJ. McDONALD, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment granting an exception of prescription. After review, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 29, 2015, Stephen Rockenbaugh filed a petition for damages naming as defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), his medical payments insurer and his uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer through his father's policy. Mr. Rockenbaugh asserted that on June 24, 2012, he was injured when Robert Utter negligently crashed his vehicle into the vehicle in which Mr. Rockenbaugh was a guest passenger. Mr. Rockenbaugh maintained that he was severely and permanently injured in the accident.
Mr. Utter was covered by an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Property & Casualty Company of Hartford (Hartford). Hartford tendered the entirety of its liability limits; however, Mr. Rockenbaugh asserted that his damages exceeded the amount of that tender and Mr. Utter had no other liability insurance. Mr. Rockenbaugh asked for a judgment in his favor and against State Farm for damages, interest, costs, and all other relief allowed.
On March 2, 2015, State Farm filed a peremptory objection raising the exception of prescription, asserting that under La. R.S. 9:5629, actions for the recovery of damages sustained in motor vehicle accidents brought pursuant to uninsured provisions in motor vehicle insurance policies prescribe after two years from the date of the accident in which the damages are sustained, and that the petition was thus prescribed on its face. In opposition to the exception, Mr. Rockenbaugh maintained that State Farm had acknowledged liability to him by a letter to Hartford dated June 10, 2013, which interrupted prescription; thus, the suit would not be prescribed until June 2015, and was filed timely.
In a reply memorandum in support of the exception, State Farm maintained that the letter was merely a medical payments subrogation letter to Hartford, notifying the liability insurer that medical payments had been made, which it was obligated to make regardless of fault, and requesting reimbursement. Mr. Rockenbaugh asserted that this letter was an acknowledgment of responsibility for payment to him for UM coverage.
After a hearing, the trial court sustained the exception of prescription, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The judgment was signed on August 10, 2015. Mr. Rockenbaugh appealed that judgment.
Ordinarily, the party pleading the exception of prescription bears the burden of proving the claim has prescribed. However, when the face of the petition reveals that the plaintiff's claim has prescribed, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show why the claim has not prescribed. Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 2009-2632, 2009-2635 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 991, 998.
If evidence is introduced at the hearing on a peremptory exception of prescription, the district court's findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review. If the findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, an appellate court may not reverse even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Carter v. Haygood, 2004-0646 (La. 1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1267.
Prescription is interrupted when the debtor acknowledges the right of the person against whom he had commenced to prescribe. La. C.C. art. 3464. Acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription may be made by partial payment, by payment of interest, by pledge, or in other ways, and it may be implicit or inferred from the facts and circumstances. Flowers v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., (on rehearing) 381 So.2d 378, 382 (La. 1979).
As a general rule, an insurer's payment under the med-pay provisions of an insurance policy that is due irrespective of defendant's liability in tort, does not interrupt the course of prescription tolling against the tort claim. Titus v. IHOP Restaurant, Inc., 2009-951 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 761, 766.
In this case, the letter from State Farm to Hartford states, in pertinent part:
Previously we wrote to let you know our investigation indicates your insured is responsible for this claim and we are seeking recovery from you. We forwarded documentation supporting our subrogation demand and have allowed time for you to investigate and reply. To date, we have not received a response from you.
Based on the assessment of liability between the parties, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is seeking 100% of the Total Claim Amount listed above. The amount payable to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for this loss is $3,499.00.
The June 10, 2013 letter from State Farm to Hartford does not make any statements or admissions that State Farm would be liable to Mr. Rockenbaugh for any further payment on his claim. It merely states that State Farm had made medical payments, which it was obligated to make under its medical payments policy regardless of fault, and that State Farm believed that Hartford was responsible to reimburse it for those medical payments. Thus, we find no manifest error in the trial court's determination that the letter does not serve as an acknowledgment of debt.
As we have found no acknowledgment of debt, we need not address the solidary obligor arguments made by the parties. --------
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment sustaining State Farm's objection raising the exception of prescription and dismissing the suit with prejudice, dated August 10, 2015, is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Stephen Rockenbaugh.
AFFIRMED.