Background
Meredith and Christopher Alvarez filed suit in the 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany (No. 202113955), as natural tutors of their minor children, Amelia and Emery Alvarez. The defendants include Jeremiah and Harriet Chamberlain, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (sued both as the Chamberlains’ automobile insurer and in a separate capacity as a UM/UIM carrier), Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart, and Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company. The presence of Instacart and its insurer Voyager Indemnity as defendants suggests the underlying dispute involves whether Instacart bears liability in connection with an automobile accident allegedly caused by one of its delivery drivers.
A trial court ruling went against Instacart’s position, prompting Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart to seek supervisory review in the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal by filing this writ application. The opinion does not describe the specific trial court ruling under review.
A three-judge panel — Chief Judge McClendon, Judge Greene, and Judge Stromberg — considered whether the matter warranted appellate intervention before a final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit denied the writ in a brief per curiam order, finding that the criteria set forth in Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), were not satisfied. Under Herlitz, Louisiana appellate courts weigh whether supervisory intervention is warranted by considering, among other things, whether the trial court’s ruling appears arguably incorrect, whether reversal would terminate the litigation, and whether no material factual dispute remains to be resolved.
The court’s one-sentence ruling signals that it found the challenged trial court decision did not clear the threshold for extraordinary interlocutory review. No reasons were written beyond the Herlitz citation, which is typical of writ denials at this level. The case will therefore proceed in the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- Instacart’s attempt to obtain pre-trial appellate relief from an adverse trial court ruling failed; the litigation continues in St. Tammany Parish district court.
- The First Circuit applied the standard Herlitz framework and found none of its criteria met, reflecting the high bar for supervisory writ relief in Louisiana.
- A writ denial carries no precedential weight on the merits of the underlying dispute — the appellate court made no ruling on Instacart’s liability or coverage obligations.
Why It Matters
Cases involving gig-economy delivery platforms and their drivers continue to generate coverage and liability disputes in Louisiana courts. Instacart’s presence in this lawsuit — alongside both primary auto insurance and a UM/UIM carrier — illustrates the layered insurance questions that arise when an accident allegedly involves a platform worker. The denial of supervisory review means these issues will be resolved, at least initially, at the trial level.
For practitioners, this order is a reminder of how rarely Louisiana appellate courts grant supervisory writs to review interlocutory rulings: absent a showing that the ruling is arguably wrong, that reversal would end the case, and that no factual issues remain, the First Circuit will leave the trial court to proceed. Parties in similar multi-defendant automobile cases should plan their litigation strategy around that high threshold.