1100 Poydras Street
Suite 2900, #103
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163.

Cited from 3 Litigation Commentary & Rev. 27 (April/May 2010)

Louisiana Fellow, Frank E. Lamothe, III, is the founding member of Lamothe Law Firm, LLC.  He practices in Covington and the Greater New Orleans area.

Mr. Lamothe is admitted to practice in Louisiana, Texas and Colorado.  He has over 40 years litigation experience in the areas of business litigation and complex tort litigation.  His business litigation practice includes business torts, breach of fiduciary duties, unfair trade practices and insurance coverage issues.  His personal injury and death litigation practice has included vehicular accidents, maritime accidents, motorcycle accidents, breach of security, products liability, clergy sex abuse and aviation casualties.

Mr. Lamothe is a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America and an invited member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He is listed in all editions of the Best Lawyers in America, in all editions of Louisiana Super Lawyers and in the 2010 Corporate Counsel edition of Louisiana Super Lawyers in the area of business litigation. He is AV rated by Martindale Hubble.

Mr. Lamothe is the past chair of the Business Torts Section of the American Association of Justice.  He is past chair of the Business Torts Section of the Louisiana Association of Justice.

Mr. Lamothe has taught trial advocacy at Tulane University School of Law, Paul F. Hebert School of Law at the Louisiana State University and the School of Law at Loyola University inNew Orleans, Louisiana.

He is the author of numerous professional articles relating to litigation topics and has lectured frequently on numerous litigation related topics.

In 1969 Mr. Lamothe earned his Juris Doctor degree from Tulane School of Law.  He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Tulane University in 1966.

Together with Michael Pfau of the firm of Pfau, Cochran, Vertetis & Kosnoff, P.L.L.C., and Roger A. Stetter of New Orleans, Mr. Lamothe was instrumental in settling 17 cases for $5.27 million dollars which involved sexual abuse which occurred at Madonna Manor and Hope-Haven, which were Catholic residential facilities for disadvantaged boys.

These settlements followed two weeks of intense settlement negotiations which were attended by senior church officials including a Bishop from the Archdiocese of New Orleans, the President of Catholic Charities, and The Head of the School Sisters of Notre Dame.  Also in attendance were the Provincial for the Dominican Order of Priests and the Provincial for the Salesian Order of Priests.

Insurance companies use a tactic in lawsuits that protects them from suits by large law firms. They enforce conflict of interest rules that bar attorneys who have represented the insurance company in the past from representing a new case against the insurer. While it is reasonable to say that an attorney cannot fairly represent an individual against an insurance company when he has represented that company in the past, in truth one case has little to do with another. But the rule is still enforced even if the work was for other legal services, like tax law.

The conflicts issue requires that a firm refrain from engaging insurance companies in legal work of any kind. But large firms often hold lucrative tax, corporate and regulatory accounts with insurance companies. Even though these accounts may never enter into coverage issues, they still create a barrier to entry for policy enforcement issues.

No law firm that has done work for an insurance company can represent a policyholder for an insurance dispute without a conflict waiver. Insurance companies can easily waive the conflict of interest but will not do so because it is an easy defense against suits. Many times, attorneys must make concession in the case in order to get the conflict waived, putting the Plaintiff at a disadvantage.

If insurance companies waived conflicts of interest, they would be leaving themselves open to more Plaintiff attorneys with specialized coverage knowledge. Instead of earning their insurance experience in the court, attorneys with insider insurance company knowledge would have a greater advantage in the marketplace.

Insurance companies like keeping coverage experts on their side of the courtroom. So they only waive conflicts when they believe they may get a better deal working with an attorney that may have some loyalty to insurance companies, rather than dealing with a lawyer who solely represents the insured party. Or they may waive the conflict on the condition that attorneys abandon certain causes of action like bad faith. By doing so, insurance companies keep the pool of qualified attorneys for the Insured party small.

Frank Lamothe does not, and will not, represent insurance companies. This saves the firm from conflict of interest problems for its clients. The firm does not have to make concessions in order to get a conflict waived, because no conflict exists to begin with.

No one can accurately estimate the potential cost of the spill because no one knows how long the oil will continue to flow, or how much oil will finally be dumped into the ocean. Every day, the well continues pouring 5,000 barrels (more than 200,000 gallons) of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Investment bank Union Bank of Switzerland (USB) calculated a cost of $12 billion. ING Commercial banking analysts thinks it may be $22 billion.

Blobs of oil have already made landfall, fouling marshes and beaches, and covering wildlife in crude. Trusting BP’s statement that it will cover all “legitimate claims” would be a mistake. This is the same company that works to cut costs at every turn while raking in record profits.

The most upsetting claims against BP are those of the family members of the deceased workers killed in the explosion. Eleven men lost their lives in the disaster. These men had wives and children. Seventeen more were seriously injured in the explosion, leaving them with deep emotional and physical scars.

Other suits include claims for loss of earnings, loss of enjoyment or property. Shrimp and fishing industries have been hit hard by the spill. By extension, restaurants that serve seafood and retailers who sell fishing nets and other equipment are impacted. To put the impact in perspective, a 6,800 square mile area of federal fishing grounds has been closed. The state of Louisiana alone provides 25% of US Seafood according to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

As the slick interferes with shipping lanes, goods will become more expensive to acquire, causing losses to all area businesses and residents. The tourism industry is also facing huge losses because of the spill.

Suits allege that BP knew about a broken seal in its well and failed to take steps to correct it. Some allege that BP and Transocean (owner of the rig) knew about power source failures in the blowout preventer that was designed to seal the well in case of just such an emergency as this.

Transocean is trying to cap claims for the spill at $27 million based on an 1851 maritime law. Until the issue is decided, all claims against Transocean have been suspended. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (initiated in response to the Exxon Valdez disaster) requires the company responsible for a spill, as determined by the US Coast Guard, to pay up to $1 billion for cleanup and up to $75 million in compensation to victims for lost income.

If the federal investigation shows negligence, deliberate misconduct or federal violations, damages could be greater. An investigation is also underway to determine if criminal charges should be filed based on federal environment laws.