Santos v. Church Mutual — supervisory writ denied

Case
Irving Santos v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, and Charles Rankings, consolidated with Nicole Marie Buranzon v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Progressive Security Insurance Company, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, Inc., Charles K. Rankins, and Irving Santos
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Wolfe (elected 2020); Stromberg (elected 2024)
Date Decided
August 10, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0642
Topics
Supervisory writs; Insurance; Civil procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The proceeding arose from two consolidated cases in the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish: an action brought by Irving Santos and an action brought by Nicole Marie Buranzon. The named parties included Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, Progressive Security Insurance Company, Charles K. Rankins, and Santos.

Progressive Security Insurance Company applied to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for supervisory writs concerning the consolidated district-court proceedings, numbered 744923 and 745751. The appellate court’s brief disposition does not identify the challenged ruling, the underlying facts, or the arguments presented.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied Progressive Security Insurance Company’s supervisory-writ application.

The disposition provides no reasons for the denial and does not announce a rule of law or otherwise address the merits of the underlying dispute.

Key Takeaways

  • Progressive sought supervisory review in consolidated litigation pending in East Baton Rouge Parish.
  • The First Circuit denied the writ application.
  • The court gave no explanation for its decision, so the disposition should not be read as resolving issues not expressly addressed.

Why It Matters

The denial leaves the challenged district-court ruling undisturbed at this stage of the litigation. Because the court issued only an unexplained writ denial, the disposition offers no substantive guidance on the insurance or procedural questions involved.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top