Opinion
2021 CW 1443
03-22-2022
CHRISTY L. DUPLANTIS v. ENCOMPASS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND ELEANOR J. FONDREN
Encompass Property and Casualty Company, applying for supervisory writs, 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, No. 191338.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
WRIT DENIED. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1153 states, ``[w]hen the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing the original pleading." Furthermore, the Louisiana Supreme Court has provided guidance for lower courts to determine whether Article 1153 allows an amendment to relate back to the date of filing of the original petition. See Ray v. Alexandria Mall, Through St. Paul Property & Liability Ins., 4 34 So.2d 1083, 1087 (La. 1983). Herein, the Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages filed by plaintiff/respondent, Christy L. Duplantis, satisfies the criteria espoused by the Supreme Court: (1) that the amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading, (2) that the purported substitute defendant must have received notice of the institution of the action such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, (3) that the purported substitute defendant must know or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party defendant, the action would have been brought against him, and (4) that the purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly new or unrelated defendant. Accordingly, as Duplantis's Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages relates back to her Original Petition for Damages, the district court did not err in denying defendants/relators, Encompass Property and Casualty Company's, exception raising the objection of prescription.
JMG
GH
WRC