Kristin
Beckman

INSURANCE COVERAGE / UM DEFENSE

​

Summary Judgment – Dismissal of UM Claims in Commercial Trucking Case

Secured summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ uninsured/underinsured motorist claims in a commercial trucking matter arising out of a multi-party accident. Through targeted motion practice, established that the plaintiffs could not meet their evidentiary burden to prove the uninsured or underinsured status of both the owner and operator of the alleged at-fault vehicle—an essential prerequisite to UM recovery under Louisiana law. The court’s ruling resulted in complete dismissal of the UM claims against her client, eliminating a significant avenue of recovery for the plaintiffs.

Brazan v. Douglas, et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. C-673887

​

Summary Judgment – Dismissal of UM and Bad Faith Claims

Won summary judgment dismissing all UM and extra-contractual bad faith claims asserted against the insurer she represented in federal court. Established that the plaintiff could not meet her burden to prove damages in excess of the tortfeasor’s liability limits, precluding recovery under the UM policy. Further demonstrated that the insurer’s handling of the claim was supported by legitimate questions regarding the extent of its exposure, defeating any allegation of arbitrary or capricious conduct. The ruling resulted in complete dismissal of both contractual and statutory claims.

Brown v. Clark, et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, No. 3:18-cv-01069

​

Summary Judgment – Dismissal of UM Claims in “Miss-and-Run” Case for Failure to Satisfy Independent Witness Requirement

Prevailed on summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s UM claims in a “miss-and-run” matter, where no physical contact occurred with the alleged phantom vehicle. Demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to satisfy Louisiana’s heightened evidentiary requirement of producing an independent and disinterested witness to corroborate the occurrence of the accident. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against the UM insurer, eliminating coverage exposure at an early stage of the litigation.

Roddick v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 22nd JDC (St. Tammany Parish), No. 2019-15451

​

Dismissal of Bad Faith Claims for Failure to Establish Satisfactory Proof of Loss

In two separate UM matters, secured consent judgments dismissing bad faith claims with prejudice after establishing that the plaintiffs failed to submit satisfactory proof of loss sufficient to trigger the insurer’s statutory obligations. These dismissals eliminated exposure to penalties and attorneys’ fees in both cases.

Angelle v. Kiff, et al., 24th JDC (Jefferson Parish), No. 786-937
Payton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., 24th JDC (Jefferson Parish), No. 798-723

                                                                                                               
INSURANCE COVERAGE / DISCOVERY & PRIVILEGE

 

Protective Order – Upholding Insurer Claims File Privileges
Successfully sought a protective order and defeated a motion to compel seeking production of insurer claims file materials and internal communications. Demonstrated that the requested materials—including communications with counsel, litigation strategy, and mental impressions—were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. The court denied the motion in its entirety, preserving the confidentiality of the insurer’s claims handling and defense strategy.
Carney v. Safeco Insurance Company, 9th JDC (Rapides Parish), Docket No. 266,942 E

Denial of Motion for Production of Insurer Claims File
Successfully opposed a motion seeking production of the entirety of an insurer’s claims file in a matter centered on the insurer’s decisions to make various payments to the insured throughout litigation. Even though the adjustment and payment decisions were directly at issue, the court upheld the insurer’s privilege assertions and preserved the confidentiality of its privileged communications and litigation materials.
Mohammad v. Noten, et al., Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, No. 2018-11515
 

Denial of Motion Seeking UM and Related Liability Claims Files Following In Camera Review
Defeated a motion to compel seeking both UM claim materials and a related third-party liability claims file. Following in camera review, the court agreed that the materials were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and rejected arguments that privilege had been waived. The court further held that the materials were not relevant to the plaintiff’s bad faith claims and denied the motion in all material respects.
Lowe v. Old American Indemnity Company, et al., 26th JDC (Bossier Parish), No. 162,089             

INSURANCE EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL DEFENSE

 

Exception of No Cause of Action – Dismissal of LUTPA and Related Penalty Claims
Secured dismissal of all claims asserted under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, along with associated claims for penalties and attorneys’ fees, through a successful exception of no cause of action. Demonstrated that the allegations failed to state a legally cognizable claim, resulting in dismissal at the pleading stage.
Fontenot v. Black, et al., 16th JDC (Iberia Parish), No. 136206

Exception of No Cause of Action – Dismissal with Prejudice of Misrepresentation Claims
Prevailed on an exception of no cause of action resulting in dismissal with prejudice of claims alleging misrepresentation by an insurer to a third-party claimant. Established that no legally cognizable duty existed under Louisiana law, resulting in complete dismissal of all claims at the pleading stage.
Delamora v. May, et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. C-723558

Exception of No Cause of Action – Dismissal of Third-Party Bad Faith Claims
Secured dismissal of bad faith claims asserted by a third-party claimant alleging failure to settle “all personal claims.”
Thomas v. Vasquez, et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. C-695224
 

Exception Practice and Consent Judgment – Dismissal of Third-Party Bad Faith Property Damage Claims
Secured dismissal of all bad faith, penalty, and attorneys’ fee claims arising from an alleged failure to pay a third-party property damage claim. After filing a peremptory exception of no cause of action, plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a consent judgment dismissing all extra-contractual claims with prejudice.
Carmouche v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., 14th JDC (Calcasieu Parish), No. 2020-002721​

                                                                                                               

​

INSURANCE COVERAGE / JURISDICTIONAL DEFENSE

​

Exception of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction – Dismissal of UM Insurer
Prevailed on a declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, resulting in dismissal of all claims against a UM insurer. Although the accident occurred in Louisiana, established that both the plaintiff and insurer were Texas-based, the policy was issued in Texas, and the insurer lacked sufficient contacts with Louisiana. The court further rejected reliance on the Direct Action Statute as a basis for jurisdiction and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Fernandez v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 14th JDC (Calcasieu Parish), No. 2020-4189
 

Default Judgment and Appellate Victory – Commercial Insurance and UM Coverage
Successful defense of commercial insurer vacating a $1.4 million default judgment, followed by a subsequent appellate victory on a separate UM coverage issue. Secured summary judgment establishing the validity of a corporate insured’s rejection of UM coverage and dismissal of the insurer from the litigation. The Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the corporation’s Director of Corporate Insurance was authorized to reject UM coverage on the corporation’s behalf and rejecting the argument that his authority was required to be separately conferred in writing.
Bergeron v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2012-86 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/6/12), 92 So. 3d 645.

                                                                                                               
 

DAMAGES & EXPERT DEFENSE

​

Daubert Ruling – Defense of Life Care Planner and Limitation of Damages Exposure
Successfully defeated a Daubert challenge to the defense life care planner in a UM case involving disputed medical damages. Demonstrated that the plaintiff’s claimed future medical expenses were inflated and unreliable, relying in part on plaintiff’s own conduct, including abandonment of workers’ compensation benefits, gaps in treatment, and inconsistent representations.
Relying on Cornerstone v. Simmons and Collins v. Benton, established that medical expenses incurred in bad faith are subject to scrutiny and limitation. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion and permitted the defense expert’s testimony, significantly limiting potential damages exposure.
Walls v. First Liberty Insurance Corporation, et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. 675133
 

Daubert Ruling – Limitation of Plaintiffs’ Accident-Reconstruction and Human-Factors Expert
Successfully challenged plaintiffs’ forensic engineering and accident-reconstruction expert in high-exposure personal injury litigation on behalf of an excess insurer. The court granted the Daubert motion in part, precluding the expert from testifying as a human-factors expert or offering opinions concerning the application or interpretation of law, including OSHA standards. The court further excluded OSHA standards themselves and demonstrative evidence purporting to depict the plaintiff’s pre-impact path of travel. The expert was permitted to testify only within the more limited scope of accident reconstruction and human-factors principles utilized in performing that reconstruction.
Berrigan v. Lang, et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. C-706944.

                                                                                                               

​

HIGH-EXPOSURE CASUALTY / REGULATORY & EVIDENTIARY DEFENSE
 

Pretrial Exclusion of Inapplicable Safety and Regulatory Standards in Commercial-Vehicle Litigation
Represented an excess insurer in high-exposure personal injury litigation arising from a collision involving a commercial concrete mixer truck and secured significant pretrial rulings narrowing plaintiffs’ liability and safety theories. The court prohibited plaintiffs from introducing or referring to purported legal standards requiring a red flag or warning cloth on the concrete chute or truck and excluded MUTCD standards. The court also prohibited plaintiffs from suggesting that the litigation was brought to establish or enforce safety standards.

The rulings rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to premise liability on statutory and regulatory requirements that the defense demonstrated were inapplicable to the vehicle and circumstances at issue, including proposed flagging and traffic-control requirements.
 

The court also granted additional evidentiary relief restricting references to insurance and policy limits, the availability of insurance to satisfy plaintiffs’ losses, the number of defense attorneys or size of defense firms, and operating manuals for products not involved in the accident.
Berrigan v. Lang, et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. C-706944.

                                                                                                               

​

SANCTIONS & CASE-DISPOSITIVE RELIEF 

 

Dismissal with Prejudice and Attorneys’ Fee Award – Discovery Abuse and Noncompliance with Court Orders
Secured dismissal with prejudice of all claims against a defendant-insurer, together with an award of $28,908 in attorneys’ fees and costs, following the plaintiff’s repeated discovery violations and failure to comply with multiple court orders in a complex conflicts-of-law/choice-of-law “miss-and-run” matter.

After de novo review, the district court overruled the plaintiff’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed all claims with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v). The district court concluded that dismissal was appropriate and that no lesser sanction would suffice.
Clark v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-2005 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2026).
                                                                                                               

​

COMPLEX COMMERCIAL, PRODUCTS & MASS TORT LITIGATION

 

Pharmaceutical Litigation

Represented brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in consolidated state-court litigation involving drug-pricing claims brought by the State of Louisiana, as well as generic pharmaceutical failure-to-warn claims.

​

Representative matters include State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge Parish), No. 596164 and Williamson v. Wyeth, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-cv-00736 (M.D. La.).

 

Welding Fume Multi-District and State-Court Litigation

Represented a consortium of welding manufacturers in multi-district litigation and related state-court proceedings, including five jury cases resulting in complete defense verdicts. The trial work included a four-plaintiff jury trial in Civil District Court for Orleans Parish and four federal jury cases in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio.

​

Representative matters include In re Welding Fume Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1535, Master Docket No. 1:03-cv-17000 (N.D. Ohio), including Solis v. Lincoln Electric Co., No. 1:04-cv-17363; Goforth v. Lincoln Electric Co., No. 1:06-cv-17217 and Quinn v. Lincoln Electric Co., No. 1:06-cv-17218 (consolidated for the Duke Power trial); and Byers v. Lincoln Electric Co., No. 1:04-cv-17033; and Andre v. A.O. Smith Corp., No. 03-11573, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

​

Hurricane Katrina and Catastrophic Property Litigation

Defended hundreds of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs for wind and flood damage arising out of Hurricane Katrina, together with other first-party property and catastrophe-related insurance disputes.