The docket for the Louisiana Supreme Court says that oral arguments will be heard tomorrow in Landry v. Citizens Property Ins. Co., a case featuring a remarkable opinion from the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal — remarkable in the sense it makes you want to remark that it makes no sense whatsoever. Of the many insurance coverage cases I have read in the last year, this one is certainly in the top two as far as sheer ability to cause frustration and pain to the reader. As I said in this prior post on the case when it came out, the dissent is somewhat more to the point but equally out to lunch. There is no need to repeat the rest of what I said before, my opinion hasn’t changed. You can read about it in the prior post.
Landry is about Louisiana’s Valued Policy Law, and the case diverges from a U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Chauvin v. State Farm, so it will be interesting to see which case, Landry or Chauvin, was a better predictor of where the state supreme court will go. The Florida Supreme Court also gave an interpretation of Florida’s Valued Policy Law that varies substantially from Landry. You can read about that case, Florida Farm Bureau v. Cox, in this post from last year. Valued Policy laws are things, like anti-concurrent cause provisions, that seem scandalously incomprehensible on first blush, but when you look at the reasons behind them, they make a lot more sense. I wouldn’t claim that either are necessarily easy to master, but it can be done, and one can certainly get closer than the Landry court did.
Here’s a post that takes a closer look at Chauvin. My guess is that the Louisiana Supreme Court will interpret the Valued Policy Law similarly to the Chauvin and Cox cases.