Acquisitive Prescription and Predial Servitudes

In Davis v. Provost, 2007-1519 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/2/08), -- So. 2d --, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit reinforced an earlier holding that 1977 La. Acts No. 514 § 1, which allowed the acquisition of a predial servitude through acquisitive prescription, was not retroactive. In Davis, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment seeking access to their property by crossing over a bridge that the defendants had allegedly locked. One of the defendants filed a reconventional demand, alleging that he had exercised for over thirty years a right-of-way over the bridge to gain access to his sugarcane field. The trial court agreed and ruled in favor of the defendant.

            The court of appeals vacated and remanded. The court of appeals first noted that the Louisiana Civil Code of 1870 explicitly disallowed the acquisition of a predial servitude through acquisitive prescription. Not until January 1, 1978, when 1977 La. Acts. No. 514 § 1 became effective, could someone obtain a predial servitude through acquisitive prescription. Relying on its earlier holding in Griffith v. Cathey, 99-923 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/2/00), 762 So. 2d 29, the court held that 1977 La. Acts No. 514 § 1 was not retroactive. Because the defendant filed his reconventional demand on May 17, 2006, the court held that thirty years had not passed, and the trial court had erred in ruling in favor of the defendant. The court remanded for further factual findings.

            The ruling may have a significant impact on pipeline servitudes and their ownership. 

            To read the full opinion, click here.

Tags:

Taxation of Fuel Provided to Compression Service Operators at No Cost

In Bridges v. Production Operators, Inc., 2007-0648 (La. App. 4th Cir. 12/12/07),974 So.2d 54, at issue was whether the provision of fuel by customers to a compression services operator at no cost for use in powering the operator’s compressors was subject to Louisiana sales or use tax.  Continue Reading...

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Enforce Arbitration Provision Setting Forth Grounds for Judicial Review of Arbitration Award

In Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 2008 WL 762537 (U.S. 2008), the Supreme Court held that the grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards provided by §§ 10 and 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) are exclusive.  Continue Reading...

Punitive damages for gross negligence are insurable under Texas Law

By Kevin Connolly

On certified question from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court, in Fairfield Insurance Company v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 2008 WL 400397, *1 (Tex. 2008), addressed the issue of whether Texas public policy prohibits a “liability insurance provider from indemnifying an award for punitive damages imposed on its insured because of gross negligence.” The Court answered this question in the negative and held that Texas public policy does not prohibit coverage under an employer’s liability policy for exemplary damages for an employer’s gross negligence that causes an employee’s death. However, without a clear legislative intent to generally prohibit or allow the insurance of exemplary damages arising from gross negligence, the court declined to make a broad proclamation of public policy but instead offered considerations applicable to the analysis.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Insurance Company House Counsel May Defend Insureds

By Andrew Wooley

In an opinion filed today in the matter of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee vs. American Home Assurance Co., the Supreme Court of Texas has authorized liability insurers to use in-house staff attorneys to defend their Texas insureds, so long as there is no conflict of interest between the insurer's and the insured's interests: "We hold that an insurer may use staff attorneys to defend a claim against an insured if the insurer’s interest and the insured’s interest are congruent, but not otherwise. Their interests are congruent when they are aligned in defeating the claim and there is no conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured. We also hold that a staff attorney must fully disclose to an insured his or her affiliation with the insurer."

The majority opinion may be viewed at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/mar/040138.htm

The dissenting opinion may be viewed at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/mar/040138d.htm

Tags: