FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
LAFAYETTE, NO. 20175202 HONORABLE MICHELLE M. BREAUX,
J. Rachal Barton W. Bernard Bart Bernard Personal Injury Law
Firm COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Russell Aiola
L. Oliver David O. Way Oliver & Way, L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Shannon J. Gremillion, and
Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.
SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE
plaintiff-appellant, Russel Aiola, appeals the trial
court's judgment finding that his claim against the
defendant-appellee, his uninsured motorist carrier, State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, was prescribed. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
was injured following a February 4, 2015 motor vehicle
accident with Howard Hughes II, whose insurer tendered policy
limits of $50, 000.00 to Aiola.On May 14, 2015, Aiola's
counsel forwarded a demand for medical payments (med-pay) to
Aiola's uninsured motorist carrier (UM), State Farm.
According to Aiola's brief, on July 9, 2015, Aiola's
counsel sent a demand to State Farm for payment of his UM
policy limits. Aiola states in his brief that counsel again
sent a demand to State Farm on March 8, 2016. State Farm
tendered the med-pay payment of $5, 000.00 on April 4, 2016.
State Farm made no other payments to Aiola.
filed suit against State Farm on September 8, 2017. State
Farm filed a Peremptory Exception of Prescription. Following
a March 2018 hearing, the trial court found that Aiola's
claim was prescribed and dismissed Aiola's claim with
prejudice. Aiola now appeals and assigns as error:
The Trial Court committed reversible error and abused its
discretion by ruling that the plaintiff's claims was
prescribed, and that prescription was not interrupted by
State Farm's payment of medical payments as an
acknowledgement of the obligation.
appeal, we review a trial court's grant of a peremptory
exception of prescription according to the following rules:
An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest
error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support
or contravention of the exception. Dugas v. Bayou Teche
Water Works, 10-1211 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11), 61 So.3d
826. If not, the appellate court "simply determines
whether the trial court's finding was legally
correct." Id. at 830.
McCauley v. Stubbs, 17-933, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir.
4/25/18), 245 So.3d 41, 44, quoting Allain v. Trippel B
Holding, LLC, 13-673, p.9 (La.App. 3 Cir. ...