Ermert v. Hartford Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Ermert v. Hartford Insurance Co., 589 So. 2d 2 (La. 1991)
1991 La. LEXIS 3275; 1991 WL 246141
Lemmon

Ermert v. Hartford Insurance Co.

Opinion of the Court

In re: Hartford Insurance Co.; Nu-Arrow Fence Co. Inc.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to *3the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 91CA-0026, 585 So.2d 640; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. “B” No. 43-927.

Denied.

Concurring Opinion

LEMMON, J.,

concurs, because the motion to amend the judgment, although an inappropriate method of seeking revision of the judgment, was filed within the delay for appealing, and if the improper motion is treated as a timely appeal, the filing prevented the judgment from becoming res judicata as to State Farm. (If the judgment had become res judicata against State Farm, La.Code Civ.Proc. art. 2164 would not support modification of the judgment.) But if the motion had not been filed within the delay for appealing, State Farm would have been relegated to attempting to annul the judgment in an ordinary proceeding in which the grounds are very limited.

Reference

Full Case Name
Karl F. ERMERT, III v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published