Opinion
No. 2020-C-00921
11-24-2020
Kenneth BERTHELOT v. Russell INDOVINA and Progressive Security Insurance Company
Writ application denied.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
The plaintiff in this case, Kenneth Berthelot, filed suit against Russell Indovina and his insurer, seeking personal injury damages arising out of a car accident. Plaintiff later amended his petition to name Mr. Indovina's employer, Pro-Mag Inspections, LLC ("Pro-Mag"), as a defendant, alleging Mr. Indovina was in the course and scope of his employment with Pro-Mag at the time of the accident. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the course-and-scope issue, which the trial court granted. Pro-Mag appealed.
The court of appeal dismissed Pro-Mag's appeal on the grounds that the trial court's ruling lacked the requisite decretal language to render it a final, appealable judgment. Specifically, the court of appeal found the judgment ambiguous because it did not identify the defendant against whom the judgment was rendered. However, the sole issue considered by the trial court on summary judgment was whether Indovina was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and the trial court ruled in plaintiff's favor, specifically finding Indovina to be in the course and scope of his employment with Pro-Mag at the time of the accident in question. While various other defendants have been named at certain points in this litigation, only Pro-Mag participated in this hearing, and the failure to specifically name Pro-Mag does not render the decretal language insufficient and, thus, does not render the judgment unappealable. Additionally, counsel for plaintiff and counsel for Pro-Mag are listed at the top of the judgment. Therefore, I would grant the writ, reverse the court of appeal, and remand the case to the court of appeal to consider the merits of the appeal.