Taylor v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. - 579 So. 2d 443 (La. 1991)

Rule:

Prescription is interrupted when an obligee commences an action against his obligor that is timely in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue under the law of the forum, regardless of whether the forum is a Louisiana court. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3462. Thus, a suit by an automobile accident victim against a tortfeasor in a court sitting in another state has the same interruptive effect upon prescription of the obligation of a solidarily bound uninsured motorist insurer as it would have if filed properly and timely in Louisiana. La. Civ. Code Ann. arts. 1799, 3503.

Facts:

The husband was injured in an automobile accident in Arkansas and brought suit against his tortfeasor there. The husband and wife later sought to obtain uninsured motorist coverage from a Louisiana insurer but the trial court dismissed the action as being time barred. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting the husband and wife’s argument that the Arkansas tort statute of limitations be employed to determine whether it was a timely filed suit against a solidary obligor. The court of appeal held that Louisiana Civil Code article 15 required that Louisiana's one-year tort prescriptive period apply and thus the Arkansas suit against the tortfeasor filed over one year after the accident, although timely under Arkansas law, was insufficient to interrupt prescription against the uninsured motorist carrier. The husband and the wife challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Was the action against the insurer barred by the statute of limitations? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The judgment of the appellate court was reversed and the cause was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The court reviewed the language of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3462 which provided that the statute of limitations was tolled when an action was commenced against the tortfeasor in a court of competent jurisdiction and forum. The court determined that the plain language of the statute also provided that such tolling occurred if the action against the tortfeasor was brought in another court, federal or state, of competent jurisdiction so long as the action was timely brought in that forum. The court also determined that its holding remained valid even if the insurer was not named as a defendant in the initial suit because, pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1799, the uninsured motorist carrier was solidarily bound with the tortfeasor.