Ronald Wilson and Kati Wilson v. Progressive Security Insurance Company

No. 2025-C-0677 · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · November 24, 2025 · No. 2025-C-0677

Summary

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal granted Progressive Security Insurance Company’s writ application and reversed the district court’s denial of its exception of no right of action. The court held that the Wilsons lacked a vested interest and therefore lacked the right to pursue their motor-vehicle-accident claim because a bankruptcy court had judicially estopped them from pursuing the litigation and ordered that the claim remain an asset of the bankruptcy estate. The court rendered judgment sustaining the exception and dismissing the suit.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott; Judge Daniel L. Dysart; Judge Monique G. Morial
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit
Decision date
November 24, 2025
Docket number
2025-C-0677
Procedural posture
Progressive Security Insurance Company sought supervisory review of the district court's denial of its peremptory exception of no right of action in a motor-vehicle-accident suit.
Standard of review
De novo review applies because an exception of no right of action presents a question of law.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Progressive Security Insurance Company v. Ronald Wilson, Kati Wilson
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

standingbankruptcychapter 13appellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurebankruptcyinsurancetortsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in denying Progressive's exception of no right of action after the bankruptcy court determined that the Wilsons were judicially estopped from pursuing the state-court litigation and that the claim remained an asset of the bankruptcy estate.
  2. Whether the Wilsons, as individuals, had a legal interest and right of action to pursue the state-court claim when the bankruptcy court ruled that the claim never vested in them.

Holdings

  1. The Wilsons had no right of action because the bankruptcy court's judgment established that they were judicially estopped from pursuing the litigation and that the claim remained an asset of the bankruptcy estate without vesting in them.
  2. The denial of an exception of no right of action is reviewed de novo when the exception presents a question of law.

Key quotations

"[A]n action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts." (at 2)
"whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit." (at 2)
"the State Court Litigation remain an asset of the estate, never vesting in the Wilsons." (at 3)
"whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation." (at 3)

Factual background

The Wilsons brought a claim against Progressive arising from a motor vehicle accident. After filing the state action, they commenced a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and failed to disclose the claim as required. The bankruptcy court judicially estopped them from pursuing the claim and ruled that the litigation remained an asset of the bankruptcy estate that never vested in the Wilsons personally.

Procedural history

The Wilsons filed a state-court action against Progressive on April 4, 2023. They later filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition but failed to disclose the state-court claim. The bankruptcy court determined that the Wilsons were judicially estopped from pursuing the claim and ordered that the state-court litigation remain an asset of the bankruptcy estate without vesting in the Wilsons, although it denied Progressive's request to dismiss the state action. Progressive then filed an exception of no right of action in the state suit, which the district court denied on September 15, 2025. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit granted supervisory review, reversed, and rendered judgment sustaining the exception and dismissing the suit.

Remand instructions

None stated; the court rendered judgment sustaining Progressive's exception of no right of action and dismissing the suit, rather than remanding for further proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…