CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS

 

STATE OF LOUISIANA

 

  1. DIV.

9000 CHEF MENTEUR PLAZA, LLC

 

VERSUS

 

FOREST INSURANCE FACTLITIES, INC. d/b/a CERTAIN UNERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON; and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON d/b/a FOREST INSURANCE FACILITIES, INC.

 

 

FILED:______________________                                                  ________________________

                                                                                                            DEPUTY CLERK

 

 

PETITION FOR DAMAGES AND JURY DEMAND

 

            NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, 9000 Chef Menteur Plaza, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and files its Petition for Damages against Defendants, Forest Insurance Facilities, Inc. d/b/a Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London; and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London d/b/a Forest Insurance Facilities, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”), respectfully averring as follows:

  1. PARTIES
  2. Made Plaintiffs herein is 9000 CHEF MENTEUR PLAZA, LLC, a COMPANY resident of the parish of Orleans, Louisiana.
  3. Made Defendant herein is FOREST INSURANCE FACILITIES, INC. d/b/a CERTAIN UNERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, a foreign insurer domiciled in the United Kingdom who is authorized to do and is doing business in the State of Louisiana and Parish of Orleans, which may be served through its Registered Agent for Service of Process, the Louisiana Secretary of State, 8585 Archives Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809.
  4. Made Defendant herein is CERTAIN UNERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON d/b/a FOREST INSURANCE FACILITIES INC., a foreign insurer domiciled in the United Kingdom who is authorized to do and is doing business in the State of Louisiana and Parish of Orleans, which may be served through its Registered Agent for Service of Process, the Louisiana Secretary of State, 8585 Archives Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809.
  5. Forest Insurance Facilities, Inc. and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London are collectively referred to as “Defendants.”
  6. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
  7. Jurisdiction is proper in this Honorable Court pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 2.
  8. Venue is proper in this Honorable Court pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 76.

III.  RELEVANT FACTS

  1. Nine Thousand Chef Menteur Plaza holds an insurance policy through Allstate, identified as the “Policy” with number 000095133167. This policy covers a property located at 9000 Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans, Louisiana, termed as the “Property.”
  2. Around August 29, 2021, Hurricane Ida left a trail of extensive damage in its wake, impacting the Property’s exterior, interior, and personal belongings housed within.
  3. Hurricane Ida’s impact was felt as it made landfall near Port Fourchon and proceeded to traverse the Southeast Louisiana region.
  4. With wind speeds reaching triple digits, the storm lingered over land for approximately sixteen hours as a Category 4 hurricane. Peak gusts of 172 mph marked it as the most formidable storm to hit Louisiana since 1856 and the fifth-strongest hurricane to touch down in the United States. This Category 4 hurricane led to catastrophic storm surges, intense winds, flash flooding, and significant devastation.
  5. The aftermath of Hurricane Ida encompassed extensive damage, including widespread wind and flood damage across southeast Louisiana. This included Louisiana’s river parishes and the metropolitan area of New Orleans. \
  6. The storm brought with it catastrophic storm surges, fierce winds, flash floods, and tornadoes. FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell labeled Hurricane Ida as one of the most catastrophic hurricanes in the history of the United States.
  7. The coastal regions of Louisiana, including areas such as New Orleans, Golden Meadow, Houma, Galliano, LaPlace, Lockport, and Grand Isle, experienced severe damage. Houma faced whiteout conditions with flying debris and significant structural damage. Galliano witnessed homes being destroyed, trees uprooted, vehicles overturned, and power lines downed.
  8. The impact resulted in communication towers collapsing and Entergy’s power grid failing, leading to extended power and internet outages, in some cases lasting for weeks or even months.
  9. The power outage in New Orleans and surrounding areas heightened the risk of flooding and left many individuals without access to air conditioning and refrigeration during hot summer conditions.
  10. Given the extensive havoc caused by Hurricane Ida, initial estimates of property damage surpassed $15 billion by August 30, 2021, a mere three days after the storm hit. The financial toll continued to rise thereafter.
  11. An initial inspection, conducted on or about September 29, 2021, by or on behalf of Forest Insurance, was undertaken. Following this inspection, Forest Insurance created an estimate of damages totaling $20,000, precisely matching the amount of the policy’s deductible.
  12. Subsequent to a second inspection in January 2022, Forest Insurance produced an updated scope of work for approximately $32,000, culminating in a supplemental payment of around $12,000.
  13. Further inspections occurred in June 2022, September 2022, and November/December 2022. However, despite the evident and significant damage sustained by the subject property, Forest Insurance refrained from making any additional payments.
  14. Around July 12, 2023, Nine Thousand Chef Menteur Plaza engaged Cross Country Public Adjusting, LLC (“CCPA”) to assess the extent of the Property’s damage. CCPA’s evaluation identified substantial damage caused by severe winds, amounting to $893,701.21 for the shopping center.
  15. Further damage was noted to business personal property belonging to Nine Thousand Chef Menteur Plaza.
  16. On 08/26/2023, Plaintiff’s attorney sent an email to Defendants a request for payment for damage suffered.
  17. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages, legal and equitable relief for the damage suffered.

 

III. CAUSES OF ACTION

  1. Breach of the Insurance Contract
  2. Plaintiffs realleges and re-avers the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-23, above, as if restated herein.
  3. Plaintiff holds an insurance policy (referred to as the “Policy”) with Defendants, covering a property located at 9000 Chef Menteur Highway, New Orleans, Louisiana 70127 (referred to as the “Property”).
  4. The Policy outlines the obligations and responsibilities of both parties, including Defendants’ duty to compensate Plaintiff for damages caused to the Property, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Policy.
  5. On or around August 29, 2021, Plaintiff experienced extensive damage to the Property due to Hurricane Ida, resulting in significant harm to both the Property’s exterior and interior components, as well as personal property contained therein.
  6. Pursuant to the Policy, Plaintiff promptly notified Defendant of the damages sustained by the Property and initiated the claims process to receive compensation for the losses incurred.
  7. In response to the claim, Defendants conducted an initial inspection on or about September 29, 2021. Following this inspection, Defendants created an estimate of damages totaling $20,000, which coincided with the exact amount of the Policy’s deductible.
  8. Subsequently, after a second inspection in January 2022, Defendants provided an updated scope of work outlining damages for approximately $32,000. As a result, a supplemental payment of approximately $12,000 was made.
  9. Despite the above inspections and acknowledgments of the extensive damages to the Property, Defendants failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to compensate the Plaintiff fully for the losses incurred due to Hurricane Ida.
  10. As a direct result of the Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered significant financial loss, as well as further damages due to Defendants’ refusal to provide proper compensation for the damages to the Property.
  11. Plaintiff seeks compensation for the damages sustained by the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy. This compensation includes the full amount of the damages as assessed by the Plaintiff’s chosen adjuster, Cross Country Public Adjusting, LLC (“CCPA”), which was estimated at $893,701.21 for the shopping center, along with the additional damages associated with loss of use, other coverages, and extracontractual damages.
  12. Plaintiff also seeks interest on the overdue compensation, legal costs incurred in pursuing this matter, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

 

  1. Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing under La. R.S. §§ 22:1973
  2. Plaintiffs realleges and re-avers the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-34, above, as if restated herein.
  3. Under the provisions of Louisiana Revised Statutes (La. R.S.) §§ 22:1973, Defendants were obligated to uphold an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in its interactions with the Plaintiff. This duty required Defendants to handle claims in a just and timely manner, and to make reasonable efforts towards the equitable resolution of claims with both the insured and claimants.
  4. Defendants’ actions subsequent to Hurricane Ida’s impact raise concerns regarding a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Despite Plaintiff’s diligent compliance with the insurance claim process and the clear evidence of substantial property damage, Defendants engaged in a series of actions that disregarded Plaintiff’s rights and interests.
  5. Defendants conducted inspections of the property and created an initial damage estimate totaling $20,000, corresponding precisely to the policy’s deductible.
  6. Upon subsequent inspections, Defendants created an updated scope of work that indicated a higher level of damages totaling approximately $32,000. However, despite these updated findings, Defendants’ actions demonstrate a reluctance to acknowledge the actual extent of the damages, thereby causing unnecessary delays and financial distress to Plaintiff.
  7. Despite Plaintiff’s compliance and cooperation throughout the claim process, Defendants failed to make additional payments despite clear indications of severe damage to the property, thus breaching the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
  8. Defendants failed to pay a settlement within thirty days after a written agreement was established, thereby violating La. R.S. §§ 22:1973(B)(2).
  9. Defendants failed to pay the claimed amount within sixty days of receiving satisfactory proof of loss, and this failure is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause, in breach of La. R.S. §§ 22:1973(B)(5).
  10. In the context of Louisiana, it is well-established that an insurance company’s self-conducted evaluation stands as an accepted manifestation of satisfactory proof of loss. This interpretation holds true when considered in conjunction with the stipulations outlined in La. R.S. 22:1892 and 22:1973. This legal precedent emphasizes the importance of an insurer’s internal assessment in substantiating claims, thus fulfilling the criteria set forth by the pertinent regulatory statutes.
  11. Defendants’ failure to pay claims as per R.S. 22:1893, without probable cause or in an arbitrary or capricious manner, constitutes a breach of La. R.S. §§ 22:1973(B)(6).
  12. Defendants’ breach of its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under La. R.S. §§ 22:1973 has caused the Plaintiff harm, including financial losses, undue stress, and uncertainty surrounding the resolution of the legitimate insurance claim.

 

  1. Violation of LA Rev Stat § 22:1892 (2016) – Breach of Prompt Payment Obligations
  2. Plaintiffs realleges and re-avers the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-44, above, as if restated herein.
  3. Defendants have breached the statutory obligations set forth in LA Rev Stat § 22:1892 (2016) by failing to meet the stipulated requirements for prompt payment and adjustment of claims.
  4. Paragraph A(1) of the statute mandates that insurers, except those specified in certain sections, are obligated to pay the amount of any claim due to the insured within thirty days after receiving satisfactory proofs of loss.
  5. Defendants’ failure to make timely payments for the property damages claim following the submission of satisfactory proofs of loss is a direct violation of this provision.
  6. Under Paragraph A(3) of the statute, insurers are required to initiate loss adjustment for property damage claims within a specified time frame following notification of loss by the claimant. Defendants’ delay in initiating loss adjustment within the prescribed time frame, considering the extensive damages incurred, is a violation of this provision.
  7. Paragraph B(4) dictates that insurers must extend a written offer to settle property damage claims, including third-party claims, within thirty days after receiving satisfactory proofs of loss for such claims. Defendants did not provide a written settlement offer within 30 days.
  8. Paragraph B(1) establishes penalties for insurers who fail to meet the specified obligations within the prescribed time frames when their failure is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. Defendants failed to meet their obligations according to the above timeframes. Such failure is arbitrary, capricious, and without probable cause.
  9. Defendants’ failure to adhere to the statutory requirements set forth in LA Rev Stat § 22:1892 (2016) has resulted in harm, including but not limited to financial losses and unnecessary stress, for the Plaintiff.

 

  1. DAMAGES
  2. Plaintiffs realleges and re-avers the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-52, above, as if restated herein.
  3. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of contract, bad faith claims adjusting, and other bad acts, Plaintiffs have incurred the following, non-exclusive damages:
    1. Diminution of the value of the Property;
    2. Actual repair costs;
    3. Reimbursement for personal repairs at the Property;
    4. Loss of business income;
    5. Actual costs related to personal property manipulation, cleaning, repair, and/or replacement;
    6. Penalties delineated in La. R.S. §§ 22:1892 and 22:1973; and
    7. Attorney’s fees, other professional fees, and litigation costs associated with the bringing of this action.

 

JURY DEMAND

  1. Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, 9000 Chef Menteur Plaza, LLC, prays that, Defendants, Forest Insurance Facilities, Inc. and Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, be served with a copy of this Petition and be duly cited to appear and answer the allegations contained therein, and that after expiration of all legal delays and proper legal proceedings, there be a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff, 9000 Chef Menteur Plaza, LLC, and against Defendants, Forest Insurance Facilities, Inc. and Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, in an amount that will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff pursuant to the evidence and in accordance with the law, all sums with legal interest thereon, from the date of judicial demand until fully paid, for all costs of these proceedings, and for all general and equitable relief.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                                                                                                         

Jared Shearman, Esq.

THE LAW OFFICES OF JARED M. SHEARMAN, LLC

4240 Canal Street, 2nd Floor, Ste. 102

New Orleans, Louisiana 70119

Telephone: (504) 321-6136

Email: shearman.law@gmail.com

 

Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE SERVE:

 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London

Through its Registered Agent of Service of Process:

Louisiana Secretary of State

8585 Archives Avenue

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )