Officer Making U-Turn Chasing Criminal May be Immune if Not Done in Reckless Disregard for Safety of Others
Fact Finder Must Establish Basis for Immunity
Post 5236
See the video at https://rumble.com/v72gq5o-governmental-immunity-is-not-absolute.html and at https://youtu.be/CHlEX2ZCc4s and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Robert Young v. Officer John Doe et al. No. 2025 CA 0527 (La. App. 1st Cir. November 22, 2025) Robert Young sued Sid J. Gautreaux, III, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish (the “Sheriff”), and multiple insurance companies. The Sheriff’s Office and an unnamed deputy were not part of the summary-judgment ruling on appeal.
Procedural Posture
The trial court granted Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed all claims against the Sheriff with prejudice, holding that La. R.S. 32:24 immunity applied and that Deputy Miller’s conduct did not rise to reckless disregard/gross negligence.
Key Facts
On July 19, 2019, Highway 19 Deputy Kevin Miller (EBR Sheriff’s Office) was responding to assist in a foot pursuit of fleeing suspects; his emergency lights were activated; sirens had been on earlier but were off at the moment of the collision. The Deputy said he was traveling northbound and began a U-turn after the suspect ran past him. Young says the deputy was parked/stationary on the northbound shoulder, then abruptly pulled out and executed a U-turn directly in front of him without warning.
Young was traveling northbound in the inside (left) northbound lane at normal or reduced speed. Deputy Miller initiated a U-turn into the southbound lanes to pursue/block the suspect; the front of Young’s vehicle struck the passenger side of the deputy’s Tahoe. Young suffered shoulder/neck injuries requiring surgery.
Controlling Statute: La. R.S. 32:24 (Emergency Vehicle Privileges)
Subsections A–C grant privileges to emergency vehicles responding to calls or in pursuit provided audible/visual signals are used sufficient to warn motorists.
These privileges do not relieve the driver of the duty of due regard for the safety of others and do not protect the driver from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others. Emergency-vehicle drivers are liable only for reckless disregard (defined by Louisiana courts as gross negligence), not ordinary negligence.
Legal Standards Applied by the Court of Appeals
Statutory immunity under La. R.S. 32:24 is an affirmative defense. The governmental defendant bears the initial burden. Immunity statutes are strictly construed against the party claiming immunity.
On summary judgment, all factual inferences and doubts are resolved against the mover and in favor of trial on the merits. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate when reasonableness, state of mind, or degree of care (ordinary vs. gross negligence/reckless disregard) are at issue, because those determinations usually require weighing evidence and credibility assessments.
Genuine Issues of Material Fact Identified by the Appellate Court
The appellate court found multiple disputed material facts that precluded summary judgment:
1. Whether Deputy Miller was moving northbound (straddling lanes) or parked/stationary on the shoulder immediately before initiating the U-turn.
2. Whether adequate visual or audible signals were used immediately before/during the U-turn maneuver sufficient to warn northbound traffic.
3. Conflicting descriptions of the overall scene (location of suspects, other officers, traffic, etc.).
Because the disputes went to the heart of whether the statutory privileges were properly invoked, and whether the deputy’s conduct rose to reckless disregard/gross negligence, the court held that the Sheriff failed to carry his burden.
CONCLUSION
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The resolution was based upon Louisiana’s emergency-vehicle immunity under La. R.S. 32:24 is not absolute.
When material facts are disputed about the driver’s position, the adequacy of warnings, and the overall circumstances of an abrupt maneuver (here, a U-turn across traffic), summary judgment on the reckless-disregard/gross-negligence exception is improper. The case must go to a fact-finder (jury or judge) to determine whether the deputy’s actions amounted to reckless disregard for the safety of others.
ZALMA OPINION
The insurance issues will be determined by the findings of the trial court whether the deputy’s actions were reckless disregard for the safety of others. If so, he and the Sheriff’s office will be found liable and if not, they can be found immune and the insurers may not be required to indemnify the defendants.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
ERISA Life Policy Requires Active Employment to Order Increase in Benefits
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXJqus8t, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g7qT3y_y and at https://lnkd.in/gUduPkn4, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Katherine Crow Albert Guidry, Individually And On Behalf Of The Estate Of Jason Paul Guidry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al, Civil Action No. 25-18-SDD-RLB, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (January 7, 2026) Guidry brought suit to recover life insurance proceeds she alleges were wrongfully withheld following her husband’s death on January 9, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Jason Guidry was employed by Waste Management, which provided life insurance coverage through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). Plaintiff contends that after Jason’s death, the defendants (MetLife, Waste Management, and Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”)) engaged in conduct intended to confuse and ultimately deny her entitlement to...
Failure to Respond to Motion to Dismiss is Agreement to the Motion
Post 5259
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gP52fU5s, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gR8HMUpp and at https://lnkd.in/gh7dNA99, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Mercury Casualty Company v. Haiyan Xu, et al., No. 2:23-CV-2082 JCM (EJY), United States District Court, D. Nevada (January 6, 2026) Plaintiff Mercury Casualty Company (“plaintiff”) moved to dismiss. Defendant Haiyan Xu and Victoria Harbor Investments, LLC (collectively, “defendants”) did not respond.
This case revolves around an insurance coverage dispute when the parties could not be privately resolved, litigation was initiated in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Plaintiff subsequently filed for a declaratory judgment in this court.
On or about April 15, 2025, the state court action was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation following mediation. Plaintiff states that the state court dismissal renders its ...
Overwhelming Evidence of Insurance Fraud Sustains Conviction - One Fraud Fails in Minnesota
Post 5258
See the video at https://lnkd.in/g62ycvAN and at https://lnkd.in/gPXVMpKx and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In State of Minnesota v. Mark John Jenni, No. A25-0111, Court of Appeals of Minnesota (January 5, 2026) dealt with an insurance coverage issue because Mr. Jenni, in July 2023, obtained an insurance policy with Liberty Mutual Insurance for a home in Park Rapids, Hubbard County, Minnesota based on false representations, only to find himself charged with insurance fraud.
FACTS
On his application, Jenni stated that the property was his primary residence, that he had purchased it in 2023, that it was not under construction or renovation, and that there had been no recent insurance claims or cancellations on the property. About a month after securing coverage, Jenni filed a claim for a reported burglary involving over $80,000 in stolen tools and property damage. He did not report the ...
Court Must Follow Judicial Precedent
Post 5252
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sudden-opposite-gradual-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-h7qmc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
Insurance Policy Interpretation Requires Application of the Judicial Construction Doctrine
In Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Inc., et al., B335073, Court of Appeal, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (9/30/2025) the Court of Appeal refused to allow extrinsic evidence to interpret the word “sudden” in qualified pollution exclusions (QPEs) as including gradual but unexpected pollution. The court held that, under controlling California appellate precedent, the term “sudden” in these standard-form exclusions unambiguously includes a temporal element (abruptness) and cannot reasonably be construed to mean ...
Lack of Jurisdiction Defeats Suit for Defamation
Post 5250
Posted on December 29, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
He Who Represents Himself in a Lawsuit has a Fool for a Client
In Pankaj Merchia v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 24-2700 (RC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (December 22, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Parties & Claims:
The plaintiff, Pankaj Merchia, is a physician, scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur, proceeding pro se. Merchia sued United Healthcare Services, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical insurance company, for defamation and related claims. The core allegation is that United Healthcare falsely accused Merchia of healthcare fraud, which led to his indictment and arrest in Massachusetts, causing reputational and business harm in the District of Columbia and nationwide.
Underlying Events:
The alleged defamation occurred when United ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dG829BF6; see the video at https://lnkd.in/dyCggZMZ and at https://lnkd.in/d6a9QdDd.
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 24
Subscribe to the e-mail Version of ZIFL, it’s Free! https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter
Merry Christmas & Happy Hannukah
Read the following Articles from the December 15, 2025 issue:
Read the full 19 page issue of ZIFL at ...
