# Taranto v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · March 15, 2011 · 62 So. 3d 721

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780625

## Case

- **Full name:** Sherry Coleman TARANTO, Dean Coleman and William S. Coleman, Jr. v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION D/B/A Louisiana Citizens Coastal Plan
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** March 15, 2011
- **Citations:** 62 So. 3d 721; 2011 La. LEXIS 604; 2011 WL 880323
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clark
- **Judges:** Johnson, Victory, Knoll, Weimer, Guidry, Clark
- **Cited by:** 110 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780625

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning that a “contractual” prescriptive period in an insurance policy was a “prescriptive period prescribed by law” and thus subject to “the laws with respect to interruption and suspension”
- noting that in American Pipe & Constr. Co., the court held that filing a class action “suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.”
- noting that the “jurisprudence provides that statutes involving prescription are strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished.”
- rejecting insurer’s argument that a “Suit Against Us” provision in an insurance policy was a “contractual” prescriptive period not subject to suspension or interruption

## Opinion text

CLARK, Justice,
concurring for reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.
|,I concur in the result for the reasons assigned by Justice Weimer.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780625. Public record. Not legal advice.