What You Need to Know

• In RTV Real Estate Holding, LLC v. Title Depot of Louisiana, Inc., the Fourth Circuit of the Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a buyer's negligence claims against its title agent as untimely under La. R.S. 9:5606, undoing a 2019 ruling that had found the agent liable.
• The court held that the buyer's March 2015 claim on its title policy showed it knew of the alleged defect, which started the one-year filing period. Its September 2016 suit came too late, and the statute's three-year outer limit did not save it.
• Where an insured makes a claim on its title policy, that claim may start the one-year clock for any action against the title agent, and a non-final liability ruling will not prevent the agent from raising timeliness later in the case.

Case: RTV Real Estate Holding, LLC v. Title Depot of Louisiana, Inc., 2024-0811 (La. App. 4 Cir 06/23/26)

Introduction

In RTV Real Est. Holding, LLC v. Title Depot of La., Inc., 2024-0811 (La. App. 4 Cir 06/23/26), the court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence-based claims on prescriptive grounds and reinforced that claims for professional insurance agent liability, including title agents, under La. R.S. 9:5606 require filing within one year from when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged act, omission, or neglect.

The Closing, Trouble Financing, and Quieting Title

RTV Real Estate Holding, LLC ("RTV") purchased commercial property in September 2014. Title Depot of Louisiana, Inc. ("Title Depot") served as the closing agent for the transaction and issued the title insurance policy on behalf of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”). After purchasing the property, RTV sought financing to develop the property but was unable to obtain financing after the lender questioned whether there was clear title to the property. RTV made a claim on its title insurance policy alleging a title defect. Commonwealth retained counsel for RTV to pursue a quiet title action. On May 26, 2017, RTV was awarded a judgment quieting title to the property.

RTV Brings Suit Against Title Depot and Goes to the Louisiana Supreme Court

RTV filed a petition for damages against Title Depot on September 30, 2016 for failing to discover and disclose the alleged title defect, thus causing it to be denied development financing.

RTV filed a motion for partial summary judgment on liability against Title Depot in March 2019. The trial court granted RTV's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The judgment, however, was not certified as final.

Title Depot filed a motion for a new trial on August 29, 2019, and the trial court denied this motion on September 12, 2019. Title Depot timely filed a supervisory writ with the Fourth Circuit of the Louisiana Court of Appeals (the “Appellate Court”), which was denied on November 4, 2019. Then, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the matter lingered with multiple continuances being granted.

On March 27, 2024, Title Depot, with new counsel, filed an exception of prescription. Title Depot argued that RTV knew of the alleged title defect on or before March 18, 2015, and that RTV's claims were barred because the petition was not filed until September 30, 2016, more than one year after discovery.

In August 2024, the trial court awarded Title Depot summary judgment on prescription grounds. RTV timely filed a notice of appeal.

The Appellate Court then vacated the trial court's judgment, finding that the partial summary judgment on liability was an interlocutory judgment that barred Title Depot from raising prescription on appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exception of prescription was filed prior to submission of the case for a decision and that the partial summary judgment, which was not designated as a final judgment, was an interlocutory ruling that did not bar the filing of a peremptory exception in the trial court.

Title Depot Prevails in the Remand

Applying the manifest-error-or-clearly-wrong standard of review to the trial court's factual findings on prescription, the Appellate Court focused on whether RTV timely filed suit in accordance with La. R.S. 9:5606.

Specifically, Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:5606 provides:

No action for damages against any insurance agent, broker, solicitor, or other similar licensee under this state, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of an engagement to provide insurance services shall be brought unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered. However, even as to actions filed within one year from the date of such discovery, in all events such actions shall be filed at the latest within three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect.

The exceptor bears the burden of proof at the trial for the peremptory exception. However, if prescription is evident on the face of the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff.

Here, Title Depot admitted into evidence, without objection, an affidavit showing that RTV made a claim with Commonwealth on the title insurance policy alleging a title defect on March 18, 2015. The Court, therefore, found that this undisputed fact demonstrated that RTV must have known of the act, omission, or neglect on March 18, 2015. However, RTV did not file a petition for damages against Title Depot until September 30, 2016, after the one-year prescriptive period had lapsed.

Unable to dispute the above, RTV argued that it timely filed its lawsuit because of the three-year peremptive period delineated in La. R.S. 9:5606. The court summarily rejected this argument, holding that the three-year period of La. R.S. 9:5606 serves as the outer limit of bringing a claim in that no party can bring an action for damages based on an act committed more than three years ago. The three-year cutoff thus became irrelevant once RTV took action indicating it knew of the act as it did when it filed its title claim on March 18, 2015. At that point, the one-year prescriptive period began to run.

Takeaways

Despite its lengthy and circuitous litigation history, this Opinion provides a straightforward analysis of the limitation period on bringing claims and the distinctions between prescriptive and peremptive limits, or as referred to in other states as the statutes of limitations and repose.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Keshav Agiwal at kagiwal@riker.com.