060M.."•

i . 141.0iM[ftly.I & LfAl

EMAMAEAEAMM

d Leopold Z. Sher Attorneys i Party Plaintiff/Appella1 James Garner B Company, Peter L. Hilbert Neal i';

Jeffrey D.

Amanda ' Schenck New Orleans, i .' and Roby_ Ryland Percy Gonzales, i w w:

and Travis Gonzales, and Eric 1. Mayer Houston, Texas rd Thear 1. Lemoine Attorney i Party Defendant/ Appellee New Orleans, i w w: NationalSuretyCorporation This appeal relates to one of several lawsuits arising from the August 2012 ippearance of a sinkhole near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. Here,

1 1 M= 10: I I I Ii ggl[

National Surety Corporation, the homeowner's insurer of Sol Kirschner. The judgmen)

IRE?

I Jlli• `/

I: WRIEZIFF715 i ll E EMEMEMEM we should defer action here until separate appeals involving Mr. Kirschner wera resolved. On October 10, 2018, we granted National Surety' s motion to stay unti' IN1511''i ii I MOMENT! Iii

liiisg 11 liii I p glu against Mr. Kirschner. Crosstex et al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al., 18- 0749 ( La.

M E AMMUR4,111011012121 I 11111il l il

al. v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, et al, 18- 1213 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 11/ 19), 2019 WL 3049762 ( Crosstex 1213), writ denied, ( La. 11/ 12/ 19), So. 3d On May 21, 11111111111 1111111 Igni IFIF

where the plaintiff has a substantive cause of action against the insured. 5oileau M

1111 I I 111 1 1 R I ii i F I, I 20EUMErt.

1= 1- IN

MMEM we affirmed that judgment in Cro55tex 0749. The trial court also dismissed TexE2.

Grosstex 1213.1 Thus, as a result of our decisions, Texas Brine no longer has a

substantive cause of action against Mr. Kirschner; and, Texas Brine no longer has E

IFRI 0= 4 0 OVER IT 1/ I S WIM air ( moot. See We115 FJrgo 63nk, N.A. v. Tonagel, La. App. I Cir. • 2013

IIEFT NEW!, 1111MI 1 11 111 1 1

appeal to Texas Brinel FAU: 243 4 931141 Uyl I I —

1 Direct actions against insurers are limited to tort liability; but, a lawsuit setting forth numerous theories of recovery may, in some circumstances, proceed under the Direct Action Statute. See MenL7 Construction Services, Inc. v. Poche, 11- 1474 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 3/ 14/ 12), 87 So. 3d 273, 276; Champion v, Panel Era Mfg. Co., 4 10 So. 2d 1230, 1235- 36 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 1982). on this cost assessment, we --• not address National Surety' s post -argument Motion I Determination or Allocation of Appeal Costs, or, In the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Posm Argument Brief. I