Kellis v. Farber
523 So. 2d 843, 1988 WL 31769 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When multiple defendants are deemed solidary obligors, a suit can be brought in any venue proper for any one of them under either the general venue rules or any of its statutory exceptions. An exception that allows an insured to sue their insurer in their parish of domicile (La.C.C.P. art. 76) establishes a proper venue for that insurer, which then extends to all other solidary obligors under the co-defendant venue rule (La.C.C.P. art. 73).
Facts:
- Mary Kellis, a domiciliary of Orleans Parish, was involved in an automobile accident in Jefferson Parish.
- The other driver involved in the accident was Stuart Farber, a domiciliary of Jefferson Parish.
- At the time of the accident, Farber was employed by Farlee Drug Company, a domestic corporation domiciled in Jefferson Parish.
- Zurich-American Insurance Company provided liability insurance for Farber and Farlee Drug Company.
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company was Kellis's own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carrier.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Kellis sued Stuart Farber, Farlee Drug Company, Zurich-American Insurance Company, and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans (trial court).
- The defendants filed a declinatory exception of improper venue, requesting the case be transferred to Jefferson Parish.
- The trial court sustained the exception and ordered the case transferred to Jefferson Parish.
- Kellis applied for a supervisory writ to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeal denied Kellis's writ application.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a supervisory writ to review the lower courts' rulings on venue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the permissive venue rule allowing an insured to sue their own insurance carrier in their parish of domicile establish a proper venue that can then be extended to all other solidary obligors, including the primary tortfeasor and their insurer, even if that parish would otherwise be an improper venue for those other defendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Dennis, Justice
Yes. A permissive venue exception for one solidary obligor establishes proper venue for all solidary obligors. Under La.C.C.P. art. 76, Orleans Parish is a proper venue for Mary Kellis's action against her UM carrier, St. Paul, because it is her parish of domicile. The court reasoned that La.C.C.P. art. 43 makes the general venue rules of art. 42 explicitly 'subject to' the exceptions found in articles like art. 76. Therefore, a venue that is proper under an exception like art. 76 is considered a 'parish of proper venue, under article 42' for the purposes of applying La.C.C.P. art. 73, the solidary obligor rule. Since the tortfeasor, his employer, their liability insurer, and the plaintiff's UM carrier are all solidary obligors, and venue is proper in Orleans Parish for one of them (the UM carrier), venue is consequently proper in Orleans Parish for all of them.
Dissenting - Marcus, Justice
No. The permissive venue rule for one defendant does not create proper venue for all solidary obligors. La.C.C.P. art. 73 explicitly states that an action against solidary obligors may be brought in a parish of proper venue 'under article 42.' Orleans Parish is not a proper venue for any of the obligors under the plain text of article 42. The majority's interpretation improperly incorporates the exceptions into the specific and limiting language of article 73, which is contrary to the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute.
Dissenting - Cole, Justice
No. The majority's opinion improperly elevates an exception to the status of a general rule and disregards the principle that exceptions to venue should be strictly construed. This 'bootstrapping' of venue provisions allows a plaintiff to engage in forum shopping by suing their own UM carrier solely to establish venue in a parish perceived to be more favorable. This decision erodes the traditional and important concept that a defendant has a right to be sued in their home parish, a choice the legislature established as the primary rule in article 42.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands a plaintiff's venue options in Louisiana tort litigation, particularly in cases involving multiple defendants and insurance coverage. By holding that an exception to the general venue rules can serve as the 'anchor' for establishing venue over all solidary co-defendants, the court prioritized judicial efficiency and plaintiff convenience over the traditional defendant-domicile rule. This effectively allows a plaintiff to bring a suit in their home parish by simply naming their own UM carrier as a defendant, even if the accident and all other defendants are located elsewhere. The ruling sanctions a form of forum shopping and has a lasting impact on litigation strategy, making the plaintiff's domicile a potentially powerful venue choice in personal injury cases.
