author: PADOVANO, J. LEWIS, J.,

text:
    GANNETT CO., INC., Multimedia Holdings Corp., d/b/a The Pensacola News Journal and Multimedia, Inc., Appellants, v. Joe ANDERSON, Jr., Appellee.
    No. 1D05-2179.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Oct. 20, 2006.
    Dennis K. Larry and Donald H. Parting-ton of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse, Pensacola, for Gan-nett Co., Inc.; Talbot D’Alemberte, Tallahassee, for Gannett Co., Inc.; Robert C. Bernius and Kevin M. Colmey of Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, D.C., for Multimedia Holdings Corp., dba The Pensacola News Journal; and Robert G. Kerrigan of Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod, LLP, Pensacola, for Multimedia, Inc.
    Jon Mills, Gainesville; and Jon Kaney of Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, First Amendment Foundation; Lee Levine, Nathan Siegal, and Nicole A. Auerbach of Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz, LLP, Washington, D.C. and David M. Snyder of David M. Snyder, P.A., Tampa for The Florida Press Association; ABC, Inc.; CBS Broadcasting, Inc.; The E.W. Scripps Company; The Hearst Corporation; Media General, Inc.; The New York Times Company; and Tribune Company, Inc., Amicus Curiae, for Appellants.
    Beverly A. Pohl of Broad and Cassel, Fort Lauderdale; Bruce S. Rogow of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale; and Willie E. Gary, Phyllis Gillespie and C.K. Hoffler of Gary, Williams Parenti, Stuart, for Appellee.
   PADOVANO, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for an alleged invasion of his privacy. We conclude that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and therefore we reverse. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants invaded his privacy by publishing facts that portrayed him in a false light. Because this claim was not distinguishable in any material respect from a libel claim, it was subject to the two-year statute of limitations that applies to defamation actions and not the general four-year statute that applies to unspecified torts.

I. FACTS

The plaintiff, Joe Anderson, Jr., is the founder of Anderson Columbia Inc., a road paving company based in Lake City. He asserted a claim against the Pensacola News-Journal and its parent companies under the false light theory of invasion of privacy alleging that the News-Journal published an article implying that he had murdered his wife. Anderson prevailed on this claim, and a jury awarded him $18.28 million in compensatory damages.

In the initial complaint filed on March 21, 2001, Anderson sought damages against the defendants for libel and tor-tious interference with a business relationship. The libel claim was based on a number of statements he alleged were false and defamatory. These statements were made by the defendants in a series of newspaper articles published between December 13,1998, and July 12, 2000.

Some of the articles could not be used to support an action for libel because they were beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations. As to the statements made in these articles, the trial court granted a partial summary judgment for the defendants. Anderson then amended the complaint to restate his claim for libel and to include a new claim for invasion of privacy based on the false light theory.

The newly added count was based on statements made in a December 14, 1998, article entitled “Contractor Puts Squeeze on State” and subtitled, “Company Pursues Political Clout.” The article reported on current and prior federal grand jury investigations and the related evidence illustrating Anderson Columbia’s pattern of making and benefitting from extensive campaign contributions and political connections. In discussing the various federal investigations, the article stated that Anderson himself had been indicted in 1983 on federal bribery charges involving three Hillsborough County commissioners. The article reported that Anderson pled guilty to mail fraud and received a sentence of three years’ probation and a $384,000 fine.

The article went on to explain that Anderson’s probation for the conviction was later extended. This is the part of the article on which Anderson’s invasion of privacy claim was founded. The relevant portion is as follows.

In 1988, while still on probation and before his conviction was reversed, Anderson shot and killed his wife, Ira Anderson, with a 12-gauge shotgun.
The death occurred in Dixie County just north of Suwannee where days before the shooting Joe Anderson had filed for divorce but then had the case dismissed.
Law enforcement officials determined the shooting was a hunting accident.
A federal judge ruled that by having the shotgun, Anderson violated his probation, and the judge added two years to Anderson’s probation.
Capt. Bab Stanley of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, was one of the officials who went to the scene of the shooting.
Anderson said that he and his wife were deer hunting when she walked one way down a road and he walked the other way, Stanley recalls. A deer ran between them and Joe Anderson fired twice. One shot hit the deer, the other hit his wife.
“One buckshot pellet hit her under the arm and went through her heart,” Stanley said.
When investigators arrived on the scene, he said, they found that the other people in the hunting party had taken the deer back to the hunt club and were cleaning it.
“You have to understand, it’s Dixie County,” he said. “Back then, they shut down the schools for the first week of hunting season.”
He said that Anderson had stayed behind at the shooting scene, and he described Anderson as looking “visibly upset” after the shooting.

Immediately after this passage, the article went on to explore the early lifting of Anderson Columbia’s suspension from Es-cambia County’s bid list due to direct pressure on county commissioners from Anderson Columbia’s co-chairmen. Finally, it concluded by listing the company’s federal campaign contributions and discussing the favors it had received in return.

Anderson claimed that this article falsely implied that he had murdered his wife and gotten away with it. The defendants moved to dismiss this count, as well, on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for defamation actions, but the trial court concluded that this count was governed by the four-year statute that applies to unspecified torts. Because the amended complaint was timely when measured by the four-year statute, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the false light invasion of privacy claim.

As the parties were preparing for trial, Anderson filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence relating to the circumstances of the shooting. He argued in this motion that, because the parties agreed that the statements in the article were true in a literal sense, the details of the shooting were legally irrelevant. Additionally, he maintained that evidence tending to prove or disprove the implication that he intentionally shot his wife would be highly prejudicial and that it would only serve to mislead or confuse the jury. The trial court granted the motion on this point and excluded any evidence related to the shooting.

The libel and tortious interference claims were voluntarily dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial on December 1, 2003, on the single count of invasion of privacy based on the false light theory. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and when the award of damages was reduced to a judgment, the defendants sought review in this court.

II. ANALYSIS

Among other arguments made in the appeal, the defendants contend that the action for false light invasion of privacy was barred by the statute of limitations. They assert that Anderson merely recast his unsuccessful libel claim as a false light invasion of privacy claim to circumvent the effect of section 95.11(4)(g), Florida Statutes, which places a two-year limitation on defamation actions. In response, Anderson contends that the false light invasion of privacy claim is a distinct tort, which differs from a claim of libel in the respect that it can be asserted even if the statement at issue is true. Thus, he argues that the claim is governed by section 95.11(3)(p), Florida Statutes, which sets a four-year limitation period for any action not governed by a more specific statute. To properly evaluate these competing arguments we must address the history of the cause of action for invasion of privacy based on the false light theory and consider the merits of a broader controversy regarding its validity.

A. The False Light Cause of Action

The cause of action was first defined in 1960, when Dean William Prosser proposed a division of invasion of privacy cases into four discrete categories: (1) intrusion upon the seclusion of another, (2) commercial appropriation of one’s name or likeness, (3) publication of private facts, and (4) false light. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev 382, 389 (1960). The fourth kind of privacy claim differs significantly from the first three in that it is the only one that requires proof that the defendants offered information about the plaintiff that was false.

The false light theory of invasion of privacy was later incorporated into the Restatement of Torts, which defines the cause of action as follows:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E. False light differs from defamation in that it may be based on a statement that is not defamatory. It is enough to show that the statement is one that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. False light also differs in the respect that it is designed to protect an emotional harm, whereas defamation affords a remedy for damage to a person’s reputation. However, the essential characteristic that false light shares with defamation is that both actions require proof that the defendant provided false information about the plaintiff.

Dean Prosser’s formulation of the four kinds of privacy claims is often repeated in general discussions about the right of privacy, but the notion of allowing a separate cause of action based on false light invasion of privacy is not one that is universally accepted. Some courts have simply declined to recognize the cause of action. See Denver Publishing Co. v. Bueno, 54 P.3d 893 (Colo.2002); ELM Med. Lab., Inc. v. RKO Gen., Inc., 403 Mass. 779, 532 N.E.2d 675, 681 (1989); Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn.1998); Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666, 669-670 (1983) Brown v. Pearson, 326 S.C. 409, 483 S.E.2d 477, 484 (1997); Falwell v. Penthouse Int’l, Ltd., 521 F.Supp. 1204, 1206 (W.D.Va.1981); Zinda v. La. P. Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548, 555 (1989). Others accepted the theory at first, but later rejected it after further analysis. See Renwick v. News & Observer Publ. Co., 310 N.C. 312, 312 S.E.2d 405, 411-12 (1984); Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.1994).

One reason that is often given for rejecting the false light cause of action is that it duplicates a cause of action for defamation while allowing the plaintiff to escape the strict requirements that are designed to ensure freedom of expression. For example, the court, in Cain reviewed all of the false light claims brought in Texas and noted that each one. could have been brought under another legal theory. Based on this observation, the court concluded that, if it were to recognize a false light tort in Texas, it would “largely duplicate several existing causes of action, particularly defamation.” Cain, 878 S.W.2d at 580. On balance, the court decided that the benefit of the cause of action, that it might afford a distinct remedy in a few unique situations, was outweighed by the potential danger of the cause of action, that it “would unacceptably derogate constitutional free speech rights under both the Texas and United States Constitution.” Id. at 581.

Other courts have also expressed the concern that a false light action lacks the protections that apply in defamation cases. In a false light case, the defendant is not afforded an opportunity to correct an error by making a retraction; reporting privileges may or may not apply; the alleged false impression may be actionable even in the absence of malice; and the cause of action is governed by a longer statute of limitations. Based on concerns such as these, the North Carolina Supreme Court reasoned in Renwick that the additional remedies that might be made available by recognizing a claim for false light invasion of privacy “are not sufficient to justify the recognition in this jurisdiction of such inherently constitutionally suspect claims for relief.” Renwick, 312 S.E.2d at 413.

The cause of action is recognized, or at least not directly repudiated, in the majority of states but it remains the subject of a heated debate among judges and legal scholars. See Patricia Avidan, Protecting the Media’s First Amendment Rights in Florida: Making False Light Plaintiffs Play by Defamation Rules, 35 Stetson L.Rev. 227 (2005); Kelso, False Light Privacy: A Requiem, supra; (1992); Harvey L. Zuckerman, Invasion of Privacy—Some Communicative Torts Whose Time Has Gone, 47 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 253 (1990). As the Texas Supreme Court noted in Cain, “false light remains the least recognized and most controversial aspect of invasion of privacy.” Cain, 878 S.W.2d at 579 (citing Bruce W. Sanford, Libel and Privacy, § 11.4.1 at 567 (2d ed.1991)). Some legal commentators have argued that false light should not be recognized as a tort, see, e.g., Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, False Light Invasion of Privacy: The Light That Failed, 64 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 364, 452 (1989) (“[T]he wiser course may be for states to eliminate false light altogether”), while others have argued that it should be retained, see, e.g., Nathan E. Ray, Note, Let There Be False Light: Resisting the Growing Trend Against an Important Tort, 84 Minn. L.Rev. 713 (2000). At best, the attempt to recognize a distinct cause of action for false light invasion of privacy has caused some confusion in the courts.

That confusion is nowhere more evident than it is in the present case. The trial court began by applying a distinction in the case law (that a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy can be asserted even if the statements about the plaintiff are true) and went from there to the erroneous conclusion that it was not necessary to prove that the statements made about the defendant created a false impression. The issue the court allowed the parties to address at trial was whether the article created the impression that Anderson murdered his wife. Anderson was never required to prove that this impression was false, nor did the News Journal ever have an opportunity to prove that it was true. The most important element (that the defendants created a false impression about the plaintiff) was overlooked in an effort to make sense of the law that applies false light privacy claims.

We are not aware of any case in which the Supreme Court of Florida has directly held that a cause of action based on false light invasion of privacy is cognizable in the Florida courts. The supreme court restated Dean Prosser’s formulation of the four kinds of invasion of privacy claims in a footnote of its opinion in Agency for Health Care Administration v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., 678 So.2d 1239, 1252 (Fla.1996). But, while the court tacitly recognized the existence of the false light theory in the footnote, the case itself did not involve a false light action.

Several other supreme court opinions similarly refer to false light claims but do not make these references in such a way as to endorse the validity of a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on the false light theory. The opinion in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156 (Fla.2003), repeated the general statement in Associated Industries regarding the four kinds of privacy claims, but it did so merely to provide historical background for the court’s answer to a certified question regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. As Justice Anstead pointed out in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Ginsberg, general statements such as these are made not to adopt or reject a particular cause of action, but rather to “provide some organizational structure” to the various kinds of claims that have been identified by the case law or other legal authorities. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d at 164, (Anstead, J., concurring).

The supreme court also mentioned false light claims in Tyne v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., 901 So.2d 802 (Fla.2005) and Cape Publications Inc. v. Hitchner, 549 So.2d 1374 (Fla.1989), as well as in Justice Overton’s concurring opinion in Forsberg v. Housing Authority of Miami, 455 So.2d 373 (Fla.1984), but these cases did not directly approve of this theory of liability. In Tyne, the court answered a certified question on another point in a federal case in which the court had granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs claims, including a false light claim. The court mentioned false light claims in Cape Publications, but the holding of that case was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a private-facts privacy claim, because the information was a matter of public interest. Finally, the Forsberg case involved the validity of the public records law. We conclude from all of these decisions that, although the supreme court has recognized the potential existence of a cause of action for invasion of privacy-based on a false light theory, it has never had occasion to decide whether such a cause of action actually exists in Florida.

The Second District Court of Appeal directly recognized and approved a false light invasion of privacy claim as a cause of action in Heekin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 789 So.2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), but, as we shall explain, we disagree with the Heekin decision. Other district courts have tacitly recognized false light privacy claims in theory, but in no other instance has a Florida court ever upheld a claim based on this theory. See Cox v. Wiod, Inc., 764 So.2d 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (reversing the dismissal of various claims including false light privacy on the ground of failure to prosecute); Ovadia v. Bloom, 756 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (dismissing a false light claim under the single publication rule); Armstrong v. H & C Commc’ns, Inc., 575 So.2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (listing the four types of privacy claims but concluding that the complaint did not fall into any of the categories); Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (listing the four kinds of privacy claims in a case not involving the false light theory); Byrd v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 433 So.2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (reversing a judgment in a libel and false light case on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove falsity); Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (listing the four kinds of privacy claims in a privacy action based on the theory of unauthorized use of private facts); Cape Publications, Inc. v. Bridges, 387 So.2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (stating in dictum that actual malice would be required to prove a false light claim).

A review of the Florida appellate decisions that mention the false light theory reveals that the courts have often repeated Dean Prosser’s summary of the four kinds of invasion of privacy claims, but without much analysis. In no case has a Florida appellate court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff in a false light invasion of privacy case. And, with the apparent exception of the Heekin case, no Florida appellate court has upheld a complaint on the ground that it states a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on the false light theory.

B. The Statute of Limitations

We do not know whether the Supreme Court of Florida would recognize a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy were it to consider the matter in the context of an actual case or controversy such as this one. In any event, we are certain that an action based on the false light theory cannot be used, as it was in the present case, to circumvent the shorter limitations period that applies to defamation actions. Because the plaintiffs false light claim is not distinguishable from an action for libel, it is subject to the two-year statute that applies to defamation actions.

When the statute of limitations issue was first presented in this case, the trial court was bound to apply the precedent set by the Second District Court of Appeal in Heekin. The Second District held that a false light invasion of privacy claim is governed by the four-year statute of limitations for unspecified torts, not the two-year statute for libel and slander, even though the “gravamen of [the plaintiffs] claim for false light invasion of privacy was the same as a claim for libel or slander.” Heekin, 789 So.2d at 357. We reject this holding and certify conflict with Heekin.

The Second District recognized an exception that would justify the use of the two-year statute of limitations for libel and slander if the false light invasion of privacy claim is “based on the publication of the same false facts.” Heekin, 789 So.2d at 358. However, the court concluded that the exception did not apply, because the plaintiff conceded that the facts giving rise to his invasion of privacy claim were true. The plaintiff in this case also conceded the truth of the facts stated in the news article that is the subject of his claim, but we are unable to accept this distinction as a reason to apply a longer statute of limitations. Whether the claim is based on the publication of false facts or the publication of true facts that are stated in such a way as to create a false impression is a distinction of no consequence. In either case, the falsity of what the publication communicates is the essence of the claim.

This case illustrates the point. The difference between the original libel claim, which was barred by the two-year statute, and the subsequent false light claim, which was not, was nothing more than the change in the way in which the plaintiff characterized the article. In the original complaint, the plaintiff quoted the text of the December 14, 1998, article and alleged that the article was “false and defamatory.” In the amended complaint, he quoted the text of the same article but alleged that the article was “worded in such a way as to portray [the plaintiff] in a false light.” Surely the protections afforded by the statute of limitations cannot be undone by engaging in a semantic exercise such as this.

To the extent that false light invasion of privacy overlaps defamation, it must be treated the same way. Otherwise, the relatively short statute of limitations and other strict requirements in the law of defamation would have no effect at all. Plaintiffs would always choose the easier course of asserting a false light invasion of privacy claim. This concern is one that was expressed by Dean Prosser himself. He speculated that if the tort of false light invasion of privacy were not properly limited, it could eventually swallow up the law of defamation:

It is here, however that one disposed to alarm might express the greatest concern over where privacy may be going. The question may well be raised, and apparently still is unanswered, whether this branch of the tort is not capable of swallowing up and engulfing the whole law of public defamation; and whether there is any false libel printed, for example, in a newspaper, which cannot be redressed upon the alternative ground. If that turns out to be the ease, it may well be asked, what of the numerous restrictions and limitations which have hedged defamation about for many years, in the interest of freedom of the press and the discouragement of trivial and extortionate claims? Are they of so little consequence that they may be circumvented in so casual and cavalier a fashion?

William Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal.L.Rev. 382, 401 (1960). These are precisely the reasons why a false light claim cannot be used to revive a time-barred defamation claim.

Courts in other jurisdictions have resolved the problem, as we have here, by applying the shorter of the two statutes when the false light action is based on a defamatory statement. See, e.g., Magenis v. Fisher Broadcasting, Inc., 103 Or.App. 555, 798 P.2d 1106 (1990); Eastwood v. Cascade Broadcasting Co., 106 Wash.2d 466, 722 P.2d 1295 (1986); Smith v. Esquire, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 967 (D.Md.1980); Robinson v. Vitro Corp., 620 F.Supp. 1066 (D.Md.1985). As the court explained in Smith, to hold otherwise “would allow a plaintiff, in any defamation action where there has been a general publication, to avoid the otherwise applicable [shorter defamation statute of limitations] merely by phrasing the cause of action in terms of invasion of privacy.” Smith, 494 F.Supp. at 970. This result would render the shorter statute of limitations for defamation actions meaningless. See id.; see also Magenis, 798 P.2d at 1109; Eastwood, 722 P.2d at 1298.

The wisdom of these holdings becomes even more apparent if we consider the purpose that is served by imposing a time limitation on the right to initiate a civil action. The court focused on this point in Gashgai v. Leibowitz, 703 F.2d 10 (1st Cir.1983), in deciding that a false light claim was subject to the two-year statute of limitations for defamation actions and not the longer period for other torts. In support of this decision, the court relied on the often cited opinion in Uhl v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, 476 F.Supp. 1134, 1137 (W.D.Pa.1979):

The purpose of statutes of limitations is to allow a plaintiff a reasonable time to realize the nature and extent of his injuries and file a lawsuit and, after that time passes, to bar actions and thereby relieve potential defendants of the anxiety of litigation. The appropriate length of statutes of limitations is governed by the kinds of injuries which particular causes of action protect and the speed at which they become apparent to the plaintiff. The injuries which may result from defamation and invasion of privacy are similar in nature and injuries resulting from defamation may arise, as a general rule, no faster than those resulting from invasion of privacy. Publications which may give rise to liability under both torts travel through the same media at the same speed. That a particular act may give rise to a cause of action under both torts but that the two statutes of limitations may differ in such cases baffles the court as well as the layman and gives substance to Dickens’ observation about the nature of the law.

With these principles in mind, the court in Gashgai concluded that it could not apply a longer limitations period to the plaintiffs false light claim. As the court explained, “assigning a [longer] statute of limitations for ‘false light’ actions would often in the many cases where ‘false light’ actions and defamation coincide defeat the obvious legislative intent to impose a relatively short period of limitations for the bringing of defamation actions.” Gashgai, 703 F.2d at 13.

We have considered the arguments that have been made for treating false light as a distinct tort with its own statute of limitations. One such argument is that false light claims should be treated differently because they involve a different kind of damages. Defamation protects against harm to the plaintiffs reputation, whereas false light was designed to protect against emotional injury. This statement is correct in theory but, in practice, nearly all false light cases involve a claim that the false impression harmed the plaintiffs reputation. See Magenis, 798 P.2d at 1109; Eastwood, 722 P.2d at 1297-99; Gashgai, 703 F.2d at 12; Prosser, supra, at 400; Zimmerman, supra, at 428-432. This case is typical. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered harm to “his reputation in the community,” and the jury awarded him money damages on the theory that the harm to his reputation resulted in the denial of permits to build a cement plant. Unlike a classic invasion of privacy case, this was not about emotional harm.

The fact that the damages are most often the same in both actions is one of the reasons the court gave in Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broadcasting Co., 709 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.1986), to support its decision to apply the statute of limitations for defamation to a false light claim. In that case, a former hospital administrator brought a false light action against a television station after the statute of limitations had expired for asserting a defamation claim. He alleged in the complaint that the false impression created by the defendant damaged his reputation as well as his right to be let alone. Noting that “[i]t is not altogether clear that there is a difference in the type of damage that can be recovered,” the court treated the false light claim as if it were a defamation claim and held that it was time-barred. Id. at 480. As the court explained:

The case at bar is nothing more than the classic defamation action where one party alleges that the other published a false accusation concerning a statement of fact — in this case, a charge of criminal conduct or wrongdoing. In his petition, appellant has merely substituted the word “false” for the phrase “false impression”; and, rather than alleging an injury to reputation, appellant alleges an injury to his reputation and an injury to his right to be let alone.

Id. at 481. The parallel between the allegations in Sullivan and those in the present amended complaint is striking. At the heart of both cases is a claim that the alleged false impression caused harm to the plaintiffs reputation.

Another argument for treating false light claims differently is that they can be based on statements that are offensive to a reasonable person, even if they do not rise to the level of defamation. This distinction, like the one relating to the nature of the damages, is largely academic. Most false light claims involve statements that would also be defamatory. See, e.g., Veilleux v. National Broadcasting Co., 206 F.3d 92 (1st Cir.2000); Jensen v. Sawyers, 130 P.3d 325, 329-337 (Utah 2005) (applying defamation statute of limitations to false light invasion of privacy claim, because plaintiff alleged statements that were defamatory); Sullivan, 709 S.W.2d at 479; Smith, 494 F.Supp. at 969-70; Magenis, 798 P.2d at 1109; Eastwood, 722 P.2d at 1297-99; Gashgai, 703 F.2d at 12; see also Zimmerman, supra, at 386. Again, this case is typical. The plaintiff contends that the article in question implied that he murdered his wife. That implication is not merely offensive, it is defamation. We do not rule out the possibility that a false light claim could be based on a statement that falls short of defamation, but that is not an accurate characterization of the claim in this case.

A final argument for treating false light as a distinct tort with its own statute of limitations is that it can be based on statements that are true. The fallacy in this argument is that a claim of libel can also be asserted on the theory that the defamatory fact was implied. See Brown v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 440 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Boyles v. Mid-Fla. TV Corp., 431 So.2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). There is no difference between a libel by implication claim and a false light invasion of privacy claim if the statements are defamatory in both cases. Consequently, we perceive no reason to apply a longer statute of limitations to false light claims.

III. CONCLUSION

In summary, we conclude that an invasion of privacy case based on the false light theory is governed by the two-year statute of limitations that applies to defamation actions and not the four-year statute that applies to unspecified torts.

As we are not able to reconcile this conclusion with the Second District’s decision in Heekin, we certify that our decision in this case conflicts with Heekin. Irrespective of the decisional conflict, we believe that our decision passes upon an important issue that should be addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Accordingly, we certify the following question as a question of great public importance:

Is an action for invasion of privacy based on the false light theory governed by the two-year statute of limitations that applies to defamation claims or by the four-year statute that applies to unspecified tort claims?

For these reasons, we reverse the judgment for the plaintiff and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to render a judgment for the defendants. We have not discussed all of the arguments for reversal, but our decision in the case makes it unnecessary to determine whether the judgment is erroneous for other reasons. The disposition also renders moot the issue raised on cross-appeal. We therefore decline to address that issue, as well.

Reversed.

BENTON, J., concurs. LEWIS, J., concurs in result with written opinion.

LEWIS, J.,

concurring in result only.

I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in applying the four-year statute of limitations set forth in section 95.11(3)(p), Florida Statutes, which applies to “[a]ny action not specifically provided for in these statutes,” including invasion of privacy actions, under the circumstances of this case. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s finding that false light claims constitute a subcategory of defamation and its conclusion that the two-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for libel or slander governs all invasion of privacy actions premised on the false light theory. Generally, false light actions fall under the invasion of privacy umbrella, see Agency for Health Care Administration v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc., 678 So.2d 1239, 1252 n. 20 (Fla.1996), and are, therefore, subject to the four-year limitations period contained in section 95.11(3)(p). Heekin v. CBS Broad., Inc., 789 So.2d 355, 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The two-year statute of limitations applicable to libel and slander actions applies to a false light claim only where a plaintiff attempts to avoid the two-year limitations period by recasting a libel or slander claim as one for false light invasion of privacy based on the same publication. See Heekin, 789 So.2d at 358. Because the Second District properly reached this conclusion in Heekin, I am also unable to agree with the majority’s decision to certify conflict with that opinion. For these reasons, I concur in the result only.

In his initial complaint filed March 21, 2001, plaintiff claimed that defendants committed libel and tortious interference with contractual and business relations by publishing a series of articles containing various false and defamatory statements between December 13, 1998, and July 12, 2000, including a December 14, 1998, article entitled “Contractor Puts Squeeze on State” and subtitled “Company Pursues Political Clout.” Because some of the articles in the series were published more than two years before the action was filed, they could not be used to support the libel claim, which was subject to the two-year limitations period contained in section 95.11(4)(g), Florida Statutes. Thus, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in defendants’ favor with regard to those articles. In an apparent attempt to get around the statute of limitations, plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint containing a false light invasion of privacy claim based on the December 14, 1998, article. He alleged that in that article, defendants published unnecessary and tangential facts that portrayed him in a false light by implying that he murdered his wife and that he was able to avoid criminal liability because of his relationship with public officials. Defendants moved to dismiss the false light claim on the ground that it was also barred by the two-year statute of limitations, but the trial court denied the motion, finding that the claim was governed by the four-year limitations period applicable to invasion of privacy actions.

In Cason v. Baskin, 155 Fla. 198, 20 So.2d 243, 250 (1945), the supreme court found that “there is a right of privacy, distinct in and of itself and not merely incidental to some other recognized right, and for breach of which an action for damages will lie.” The court subsequently noted that there are four types of wrongful conduct that can be remedied through an invasion of privacy action: (1) appropriation of a person’s name or likeness to obtain some benefit, (2) intrusion, physically or electronically, into a person’s private quarters, (3) public disclosure of private facts that are true but which a reasonable person would find objectionable, and (4) false light in the public eye, or publication of facts that place a person in a false light even though the facts might not be defamatory. See Agency for Health Care Admin., 678 So.2d at 1252 n. 20. The majority asserts that the supreme court’s various references to false light claims cannot be construed as endorsing the validity of a false light invasion of privacy action. I disagree. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 162 (Fla.2003), the supreme court, in determining whether unwelcome conduct such as touching in a sexual manner and making sexually offensive comments stated a cause of action for the Florida common law tort of invasion of privacy, set forth, “[W]e here affirm that the statement in [Agency for Health Care Administration ] does correctly state what is included in Florida’s tort of invasion of privacy.” Contrary to the majority’s assertion and despite the fact that a false light claim was not at issue in Ginsberg, that statement is more than a tacit recognition of the existence of a cause of action for invasion of privacy based on the false light theory. It is an affirmative recognition of false light as a valid cause of action that falls under the invasion of privacy umbrella, which we are bound to follow. It is not within the province of this Court to remove false light from that umbrella and reclassify it as a subcategory of defamation.

Because the supreme court has recognized invasion of privacy as a distinct cause of action and categorized false light as a subcategory of invasion of privacy, I agree with the Second District’s approval of false light invasion of privacy as a valid action and its determination that the four-year statute of limitations contained in section 95.11(3)(p) applies to all invasion of privacy actions, including those based on the false light theory. See Heekin, 789 So.2d. at 358; see also Haskins v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 898 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating that in Florida, the statute of limitations for invasion of privacy claims is four years, citing section 95.11(3)); Putnam Berkley Group, Inc. v. Dinin, 734 So.2d 532, 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (finding that a common law invasion of privacy claim was barred by the four-year limitations period in section 95.11(3)(p)); Houston v. Fla.-Ga. Television Co., 192 So.2d 540, 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (holding that the four-year catch-all statute of limitations applies to actions for invasion of privacy because such actions are not specifically provided for or referred to elsewhere in chapter 95, Florida Statutes). Accordingly, I am unable to agree with the majority’s decision to certify conflict with Heekin.

Furthermore, as recognized in Heekin, there is an exception to the general rule where a plaintiff attempts to avoid the two-year statute of limitations applicable to libel and slander actions by simply recasting a libel or slander claim as one for false light invasion of privacy. 789 So.2d at 358. This is because in Florida, a single publication gives rise to a single action, and different injuries resulting from the same publication are merely separate damages resulting from a single wrong. See Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Banyon Lakes C. Corp., 831 So.2d 204, 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Under the single publication/single action rule, multiple actions are not permitted where they arise from the same publication upon which a failed defamation claim is based. Id.; Ovadia v. Bloom, 756 So.2d 137, 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). “ ‘The rule is designed to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing a valid defense to defamation by recasting essentially the same facts into several causes of action all meant to compensate for the same harm.’ ” Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., 831 So.2d at 208 (citation omitted). Thus, where, as here, a plaintiffs libel claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations, his false light invasion of privacy claim based on the same publication is also barred because the same privileges and defenses apply to both claims. See id.

Here, plaintiff initially sought damages against defendants for libel based on the publishing of a series of newspaper articles. After the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that some of the articles could not be used to support his libel claim because the statute of limitations for libel actions had expired, plaintiff amended his complaint, adding a claim of false light invasion of privacy. The new claim was based on a single article, which plaintiff had also relied on in support of his prior libel claim. Thus, plaintiff simply recast his libel claim as one for false light invasion of privacy in an attempt to circumvent the two-year limitations period applicable to libel actions. As such, this case falls within the exception recognized in Heekin, and the false light invasion of privacy claim was also barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The trial court’s erroneous application of the four-year limitations period to plaintiffs false light claim allowed him to avoid the statute of limitations applicable to his libel claim by simply renaming it to fit a different category of wrong. See Callaway Land & Cattle Co., Inc., 831 So.2d at 208; Heekin, 789 So.2d at 358.

Accordingly, although I agree with the majority that in this case, the trial court erred in applying the four-year catch-all statute of limitations to plaintiffs false light claim, I disagree with its holding that all false light invasion of privacy claims are governed by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to defamation claims.

      . The opinion focused on Texas law, but the point the court was making could be applied, as well, to the entire body of false light decisions throughout the United States. After reviewing six hundred false light cases, one commentator came to the conclusion that the cause of action most often duplicates defamation and "that there is not even a single good case in which false light can be clearly identified as adding anything distinctive to the law.” See J. Clark Kelso, False Light Privacy: A Requiem, 32 Santa Clara L.Rev. 783, 785 (1992).

      . See Kelso, False Light Invasion of Privacy: A Requiem, supra, at 787. After identifying all of the potential problems the courts have encountered in an effort to recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy, the author concluded that the worst of them was that "the supposed existence of false light has confused courts and practitioners, who remain uncertain as to the scope of the tort and the type of defenses which may be asserted.”

      . Judge Lewis expresses the view in his concurring opinion that the exception in Heekin applies because the plaintiff originally asserted a series of libel claims and then recast one of those claims as a false light invasion of privacy claim. It is true that there was no prior complaint in Heekin whereas the present case involves an attempt to restate a claim, but that would not trigger the exception. As we understand the exception stated in Heekin, it would apply only if the plaintiff asserts a claim "based on publication of the same false facts.” The Heekin court declined to apply the exception not because there had been no prior complaint in that case, but rather because the false light invasion of privacy claim was, in the court’s view, different from any defamation claim that could have been asserted.

      . Applying the statute of limitations for defamation to false light actions is not a new idea. The possibility was raised in the Restatement shortly after it was adopted. The official comments provide some guidance in deciding whether the various common law restrictions and privileges attending defamation, including the statute of limitations, should apply to claims brought under the false light theory. The drafters suggested that it may be appropriate to apply the defamation statute to such claims:
      When the false publicity is also defamatory so that either action can be maintained by the plaintiff, it is arguable that limitations of long-standing that have been found desirable for the action for defamation should not be successfully evaded by proceeding upon a different theory of later origin, in the development of which the attention of the courts has not been directed to the limitation.
      Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E, Comment e, at 399.

      . The need to limit reputation damages to defamation claims is also discussed in detail in Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 453, 280 N.Y.S.2d 641, 227 N.E.2d 572 (1967), a case stemming from the infamous scandal surrounding the television quiz show, "Twenty-One,” in the 1950s.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: VICTORY, J. CALOGERO, Chief Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Tonya A. COLVIN v. LOUISIANA PATIENT’S COMPENSATION FUND OVERSIGHT BOARD, et al. Thomas Miller, et al. v. Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund oversight Board, et al.
    No. 2006-C-1104.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 17, 2007.

      Charles C. Foti, Jr., Attorney General, Jerald L. Perlman, Assistant Attorney General, Roedel, Parson, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister, Larry M. Roedel, Carlton Jones, III, Baton Rouge, for Applicant.
    Nelson & Hammons, John L. Hammons, Cornell R. Flournoy, Shreveport, for Respondent.
   VICTORY, J.

hWe granted the writ application in these consolidated cases to determine the proper venue in a suit against the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board (the “PCFOB”). After considering the record and the applicable law, we hold that venue for a suit against this state agency is specifically provided by La. R.S. 13:5104(A), and that the general venue provisions and exceptions found in La. C.C.P. arts. 42, and 71-85, specifically La. C.C.P. art. 74, do not apply. Because we find that these causes of action arose in East Baton Rouge Parish for venue purposes, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal, and reinstate the judgment of the trial court which transferred the cases to the 19th Judicial District Court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, the Colvins and the Millers, each reside in Bossier Parish. The Colvins filed a medical malpractice claim in Caddo Parish against a doctor and hospital located in Caddo Parish as well as the Louisiana 12Patient’s Compensation Fund (the “PCF”) for medical malpractice that occurred in Caddo Parish. Trial was set for October 24, 2005, but the case was settled before trial, and the PCF paid the plaintiffs on November 30, 2005. The Millers filed a medical malpractice claim in Bossier Parish against a Bossier hospital, a Caddo Parish hospital, a doctor, and the PCF for medical malpractice that occurred in Bossier and Caddo Parishes. The medical review panel found that the negligence of the nursing staff at the Caddo Parish hospital caused the death of the Miller’s daughter and granddaughter. The Millers settled with the Caddo Parish hospital, and their claims against the Bossier hospital and the doctor were dismissed on summary judgment. The Millers subsequently obtained a judgment in their favor against the PCF and the nominal defendant hospital for all damages sought. The PCF’s appeal of that judgment is pending at the Second Circuit Court of Appeal. Those cases are not the subject of this opinion.

Subsequently, both the Colvins and the Millers filed suit against the Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board (the “PCFOB”) seeking compensation for damages based on the PCFOB’s alleged failure to carry out its statutorily mandated duties of good faith and its fiduciary obligations to the legitimate victims of medical malpractice and for a declaratory judgment specifying and setting forth the duties and obligations owed by the PCF, the PCFOB and representatives of these bodies to plaintiffs and other similarly situated medical malpractice claimants. Essentially, plaintiffs argue that the PCFOB arbitrarily and capriciously failed to settle and pay their claims as required under the medical malpractice statute. Plaintiffs claim that these actions are separate and distinct from their underlying medical malpractice claims filed pursuant to the medical malpractice act. Both the Colvins and the Millers filed these suits in Caddo Parish. The PCFOB filed ^exceptions of improper venue in both cases, and both cases were dismissed. Subsequently, the Colvins and the Millers each filed suit in Bossier Parish, and on motion of the PCFOB, the cases were consolidated. The PCFOB then filed exceptions of improper venue in Bossier Parish, which were granted, and the cases were transferred to the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish. The court of appeal reversed, and remanded the cases to Bossier Parish for further proceedings. Colvin v. Louisiana Patients Compensation Oversight Board, c/w Miller v. Louisiana Patients Compensation Oversight Board, 40,903, 40,904 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/12/06), 927 So.2d 1229. We granted this writ application to determine the proper venue for this suit against a state agency. Colvin v. Louisiana Patients Compensation Oversight Board, c/w Miller v. Louisiana Patients Compensation Oversight Board, 06-1104 (La.9/1/06), 937 So.2d 847.

DISCUSSION

We explained venue in Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hosp. as follows:

Venue means the parish where an action may properly be brought and tried under the rules regulating the subject. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 41. Venue provisions are significantly different from jurisdictional provisions. Code articles governing jurisdiction over the person, for instance, are based largely on constitutional requirements of due process and of full faith and credit. On the other hand, Code articles governing venue are based on legislative considerations for allocating cases, according to the particular action and the particular parties, among the various parishes which have an interest in the action (over which some Louisiana court has the constitutional power to exercise jurisdiction).
The original concept of venue was that “one must be sued before his own judge.” Former La.Code Practice art. 162. This concept, however, has become anachronistic with the ever-increasing number of legislative exceptions to venue at the party’s domicile. Kellis v. Farber, 523 So.2d 843, 847 (La.1988).
The 1960 Code of Civil Procedure divided the rules of venue into three categories: (1) Article 44 provides a non-waivable mandatory venue for actions such as nullity of judgment; (2) Articles 78 through 83 provide a preferred but waivable venue which governs exclusively when the rule conflicts with any article except Article 44; and (3) Article 42 1¿provides a general venue in which the defendant must be sued at his “home base,” but is subject to numerous exceptions in Articles 71 through 77, which provide specific optional venues that the plaintiff may choose as an alternative to the venue in Article 42. Thus the rules of venue today are less designed to provide protection for the defendant, who has no constitutional right to be tried in a particular forum, and more designed to allocate cases among parishes with an interest in the proceeding so as to provide for efficient disposition of caseloads.

97-1997 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 715, 716-17.

In Underwood, a suit against a political subdivision, we further explained that “Article 42, which essentially provides for venue at the ‘home base’ of the entity sued, has no provision for venue in actions against the state or political subdivisions of the state,” and that instead the venue provisions against these entities are set forth in La. R.S. 13:5104. Id. at 717 (emphasis added). La. R.S. 13:5104 provides in pertinent part:

A. All suits filed against the state of Louisiana or any state agency may be instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the state capítol is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.
B. All suits filed against a political subdivision of the state or against an officer or employee of a political subdivision for conduct arising out of the discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment shall be instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the political subdivision is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises. (Emphasis added.)

As we noted in Underwood, a 1985 amendment to 13:5104(B) which changed “may” to “shall” indicated a legislative intent that a single political subdivision can be sued only in one of the two specified parishes and that no other exceptions are applicable. Underwood, supra at 717-18. However, as legal commentators have pointed out, La. R.S. 13:5104(A), dealing with the state agencies, uses the permissive “may,” which “arguably can be construed as a rule of general venue subject to the exceptions of Articles 71 through 77, but ‘may’ also could be construed to mean venue is | .¡permissible in one of the two parishes but no other.” Frank L. Maraist and Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana Civil Law Trea tise, Vol. 1, Civil Procedure, § 3.4, p. 37 (West 1999).

This is the issue with which we are confronted today, for the exception for tort actions found in La. C.C.P. 74, if applicable, is broader than La. R.S. 13:5104(A)in that it allows for venue in the parish in which the damages were sustained. In addition, if we determine that La. R.S. 13:5104(A) is applicable to the exclusion of the other general venue statutes, then we must also determine where a direct tort cause of action arises for purposes of La. R.S. 13:5104.

Courts have uniformly recognized that because La. R.S. 13:5104(B) uses the term “shall” in providing venue for suits against political subdivisions, this provision is mandatory and no other venue provisions or exceptions are applicable. See e.g., White v. Beauregard Memorial Hosp., 02-0902 (La.6/14/02), 821 So.2d 481; Underwood, supra at 717-18; Franques v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury, 625 So.2d 157 (La.1993); National Linen Service v. City of Monroe, 39,199 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/15/04), 889 So.2d 1186; Hatten v. Schwerman Trucking Co., 04-1005(La. App. 3 Cir. 12/8/04), 889 So.2d 448, writ denied, 05-0076 (La.3/18/05), 896 So.2d 1009; Singley v. City of Bastrop, 33,247 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/10/00), 759 So.2d 292. As such, the general venue provisions found in La. C.C.P. arts. 42, and 71-85 do not apply. However, as we must clearly recognize, La. R.S. 13:5104(A) provides that suits against the state or a state agency “may” be instituted in Baton Rouge or the parish in which the cause of action arises.

| fiIn determining the meaning of La. R.S. 13:5104(A), we look to the appliea-ble rules of statutory construction, which were recently set out by this Court as follows:

The fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation is legislative intent. SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 2000-1695, p. 11 (La.6/29/01), 808 So.2d 294, 302; Succession of Boyter, 99-0761, p. 9 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1128. The rules of statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the legislature. Id.; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 5 (La.7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766.
The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter and by placing a construction on the law that is consistent with the express terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the legislature in enacting the law. SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, 2000-1695 at p. 11, 808 So.2d at 302; Succession of Boyter, 99-0761 at p. 9, 756 So.2d at 1129. A statute must be applied and interpreted in a manner that is logical and consistent with the presumed purpose and intent of the legislature. Id.
Further, it is presumed that every word, sentence, or provision in a law was intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were employed. Sultana Corporation v. Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company, 03-0360, p. 9 (La.12/3/03), 860 So.2d 1112, 1119. As a result, courts are bound, if possible, to give effect to all parts of a statute and to construe no sentence, clause or word as meaningless and surplusage if a construction giving force to, and preserving, all words can legitimately be found. St. Martin Parish Police Jury v. Iberville Parish Police Jury, 212 La. 886, 33 So.2d 671, 676 (1947); State v. Fontenot, 112 La. 628, 36 So. 630, 634 (1904). Finally, it is presumed that the legislature acts with full knowledge of well-[settled] principles of statutory construction. Sultana Corporation, 03-0360 at p. 9, 860 So.2d at 1119.
In addition to the above judicial principles which are guides to determine the intent of the legislature, the legislature has enacted rules for the construction of statutes in the provisions of the revised statutes. The following are pertinent to this case.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 1:3 provides:
Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. Technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and [7understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.
The word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive.

Moss v. State, 05-1963 (La.4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1185.

The issue before us is whether, by using the phrase “may,” the legislature intended the general venue provisions and exceptions found in La. C.C.P. arts. 42 and 71-85 to apply, or whether the legislature intended that suit “may” be filed in Baton Rouge or the parish where the cause of action arose but no other, or whether the legislature used the term “may” in recognition of the fact that there are any other venue statutes applicable to state agencies that may also apply.

As this Court has recognized, “[i]n the context of venue, the permissive ‘may’ and the mandatory ‘shall’ have often been interchanged.” Underwood, supra at 717. “Indeed, Article 42, the general venue statute, employs the word “shall” to define the general venue for different types of defendants, yet is subject to the numerous statutory exceptions.” Id. (citing Gurtler, Hebert & Co. v. Marquette Casualty, Co., 145 So.2d 145 (La.App. 4 Cir.1962)) (holding that “may” in venue provision involving enforcing private works is mandatory); and see also 3 A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 67.04 (5th ed.1992) (noting that venue provisions should be liberally construed). Thus, in spite of the rule in La. R.S. 1:4 that “may” is permissive, that is clearly not always the case when it comes to venue statutes, which makes sense when we recognize that venue is basically a convenience factor as opposed to a jurisdictional factor, giving consideration to the particular action and |Rthe particular parties. Indeed, when multiple parties are involved, venue may be “mandatory” in a different court for each defendant, yet that does not mean that the case will not be ultimately heard in a court that is proper for one party but not the others under the concept of ancillary venue. See e.g., Underwood, swpra.

In addition, as the above rules indicate, a statute should not be interpreted in a manner which would make it meaningless if a construction giving force to all words can legitimately be found. In this case, if we were to interpret La. R.S. 13:5104(A) as a permissive statute such that all other general venue statutes and exceptions were also applicable, the entire statute would be meaningless. This is evident when considering La. C.C.P.art. 42 and 74, which the plaintiffs claim are applicable in this case. La. R.S. 13:5104(A) provides for venue at the defendant’s “home base” of East Baton Rouge Parish, with an alternate venue “where the cause of action arises.” If the general venue statutes were also applicable to a state agency, then La. R.S. 13:5104(A) would be meaningless, as La. C.C.P. art. 42 would provide for venue at defendant’s “home base,” which in this case is East Baton Rouge Parish, and La. C.C.P. art. 74 would allow venue in the parish where the wrongful conduct occurred or where the damages were sustained. There would have been no reason to enact La. R.S. 13:5104(A) for state agencies if the general venue statutes were also applicable bécause the general venue statutes already provided for venue in those same places in addition to other places.

Further, it is evident that the general venue statutes do not apply to the state or state agencies as La. C.C.P. art. 42 lists the specific entities to which these general | svenue statutes apply, none of which is the state, state agencies, or political subdivisions. The rules found in La. C.C.P. art. 42 set out the rules for (1) individuals; (2) domestic corporations, domestic insurers and domestic limited liability companies; (3) domestic partnerships and domestic unincorporated associations; (4) foreign corporations and foreign limited liability companies licensed to do business in Louisiana; (5) foreign corporations or foreign limited liability companies not licensed to do business in Louisiana, nonresidents who have not appointed an agent for service of process, other than a foreign or alien insurer; (6) nonresidents, other than foreign corporations or alien insurers, who have appointed an agent for service of process; and (7) foreign or alien insurers. Clearly, the state and state agencies do not fit into any of these categories and ■thus the general venue provisions of La. C.C.P. art. 42 do not apply to them. As the general venue provisions of La. C.C.P. art. 42 do not apply, neither do the exceptions to Article 42, including La. C.C.P. art. 74, apply. La. C.C.P. art. 43 (“The general rules of venue provided in Article 42 are subject to the exceptions provided in Articles 71 through 85 and as otherwise provided by law.”)

One explanation why the legislature may have used the term “may” in La. R.S. 135104(A) when providing venue for the state and state agencies, but used “shall” in La. R.S. 13:5104(B) when providing venue for political subdivisions, is that there are specific statutes that provide venue for specific state agencies which would take precedence over La. R.S. 13:5104(A). For instance, La. R.S. 13:5104(D) provides that suits against faculty or staff of the LSU Board of Supervisors, the Louisiana State Medical School, or the Louisiana State Health Services Center alleging administrative or supervisory negligence arising out of the discharge of duties created pursuant to La. R.S. 17:1509-1519.8 shall be brought in the parish where the medical care was 1 inactually provided to the patient. Regarding state agencies outside the health related fields, La. R.S. 56:7(A) establishes that the only proper venue for suits against the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission is East Baton Rouge Parish. Likewise, La. 36:602(A) creates the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and establishes its domicile as Baton Rouge. These specific statutes controlling suits against the Commission and the Department supersede the general venue statute of La. R.S. 13:5104(A) for suits against these agencies. Jurisich v. Seafood Div. of Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, 95-2049 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/15/96), 676 So.2d 600, 602 (citing State Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries v. Vanacor, 94-689 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/94), 648 So.2d 1078); Demolle v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 580 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 586 So.2d 534 (La.1991). In addition, La. R.S. 15:1177 provides that any offender aggrieved by an adverse decision of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may seek judicial review only in the 19th Judicial District, or if the offender is in the physical custody of the sheriff, in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the sheriff is located. See also La. R.S. 49:964(B) (providing venue for review of Office of Risk Management decisions in parish where agency is located); La. C.C.P. art. 84 (providing venue for numerous state retirement systems and employee benefit programs in Baton Rouge or the parish of domicile of the retirement system or employee benefit program).

Considering the above, we find that suits against the state or state agencies are not governed by the general venue provisions and exceptions found in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 42 and 71 through 85. Instead, the general venue provisions for the state or state agencies are found at La. R.S. 13:5104(A), and this In general venue provision governs, unless a more specific venue governing a specific state agency is found elsewhere in the Revised Statutes. That being said, we must now determine where venue is proper for these consolidated suits against the PCFOB under La. R.S. 13:5104(A).

Plaintiffs claim that the PCFOB is obliged under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act to expeditiously investigate and evaluate medical malpractice claimants justly, equitably and promptly for all losses, injuries or other damages to which they are entitled. Plaintiffs claim that, by failing to properly handle them claims against the PCF, the PCFOB breached obligations of good faith and fair dealing and fiduciary duties owed to them as medical malpractice claimants. Plaintiffs filed these tort actions seeking damages for such violations and seeking a declaratory judgment enumerating and delineating their rights pursuant to the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act as well as enumerating the duties and obligations owed to them and other similarly situated medical malpractice claimants by the PCFOB and those for whom the PCFOB may be legally responsible.

Accordingly, both suits seek declaratory and monetary relief against the PCFOB for negligent adjustment and administration of the underlying medical malpractice claims. The trial court found that as the plaintiffs are challenging a ministerial action of a state agency which handles a large number of claims, and the conduct complained of occurred in Baton Rouge where the decisions are made, the court in the parish where the decisions are made should review all complaints against that agency rather than have courts all over the state review the actions. The court of appeal reversed, finding that venue is proper under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) in Bossier Parish where the plaintiffs are domiciled and where the damages resulting from the action and/or inaction arose. 927 So.2d at 1231. The court of appeal relied on Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 03-0719 (La.12/3/03), 864 So.2d 117 and Walls v. American Optical Corp., 98-0455 (La.9/8/99), 740 So.2d 1262, which hold that a cause of action accrues when a party has a right to sue and that a negligence cause of action will arise only upon the happening of a wrongful act and the existence of an injury resulting in legally cognizable damages. Id. Because plaintiffs allege they have suffered economic damages as well as general damages arising from the alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress on the part of the PCFOB in failing to properly administer their claims and these damages were sustained by plaintiffs in Bossier Parish where they reside, the court of appeal held that venue was proper in Bossier Parish under La. R.S. 13:5104(A). Id.

We disagree. In a direct tort action, the analysis for “when” a cause of action arises is different from the analysis for “where” a cause of action arises for venue purposes. Although we ultimately held in Wharton that for venue purposes under La. R.S. 13:5104(B), a wrongful death cause of action arises at the place of death, regardless of where the wrongful conduct occurred, we recognized that in a direct tort action, as opposed to a wrongful death action, venue is proper, even under La. C.C.P. art. 74, in the parish in which the wrongful conduct took place. Further, the |1sstandard for addressing “when” a cause of action arises under Landry and Walls addresses theories of recovery for determining a party’s right to recovery, whereas “where” a cause of action arises for venue purposes addresses a consideration of the most convenient situs for trial. Under such consideration, the place where a plaintiff happened to be when wrongful conduct caused his damages is often very inconvenient for purposes of where the trial should be conducted, as it often has no relation to the location of the defendant, or the wrongful conduct. In any event, the ultimate holding of Wharton is distinguishable and not determinative of this case, as Wharton was a wrongful death case.

Courts of appeal have recognized that the question of what constitutes the situs of a cause of action has been the source of much consternation among the circuits and has eluded a precise definition. Anderson v. State, 05-0551 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), 916 So.2d 431, 435, writ denied, 05-2493 (La.6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1243; Commercial Nat. Bank in Shreveport v. First Nat. Bank of Fairfield, Tex., 603 So.2d 270 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 605 So.2d 1151 (La.1992); V.C. Nora, supra; Abshire v. State, through Dept. of Ins., ,93-923 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/94), 636 So.2d 627, writ denied, 94-1213 (La.6/24/94), 640 So.2d 1332. After reviewing the applicable law and the purpose of the venue statutes, we agree with and adopt the test first set forth by the Fourth Circuit in Avenal v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, 95-0836 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/30/95), 668 So.2d 1150, writ denied, 96-198 (La.1/26/96), 667 So.2d 524. In Avenal, the court held that “the place where the operative facts occurred which support plaintiffs entitlement to recovery is where the cause of action aris[es]” for' venue purposes under La. R.S. 13:5104(A).

|14In this case, the operative facts which support plaintiffs’ entitlement to recovery, i.e., the PCFOB’s administrative decision not to settle their claims, all occurred in East Baton Rouge Parish. Indeed, several courts have held that where a state agency’s ministerial or administrative actions are called into question, East Baton Rouge offers the only appropriate forum, as that is both “the district in which the state capital is located” and “the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.” Anderson v. State, supra; Cameron Parish Police Jury v. McKeithen, 02-1202 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/14/02), 827 So.2d 666, writ denied, 02-2547, 02-2548 (La.10/23/02), 827 So.2d 1148, 1149; Abshire v. State, supra. In Abshire, plaintiffs filed suit against the Department of Insurance and others for fraud and mismanagement in Rapides' Parish, alleging that venue was proper there as their place of domicile and where their damages were suffered. The Abshire court, after finding that La. R.S. 13:5104 was the sole statutory authority for venue against state agencies, held that when a public defendant’s ministerial actions are called into question, Baton Rouge offers the only appropriate forum. 636 So.2d at 629. The court reasoned:

“[s]ome entities frequently may be sued in parishes other than that of the domicile of their headquarters, but the language contained in La. R.S. 13:5104(A) would render exceptionally rare the circumstances under which a state entity who opposes litigation away from home might be required to litigate issues of great import statewide, as opposed to causes of action whose immediate consequences merely reverberate locally.” See e.g., Ferrington v. Van Sickle, 545 So.2d 719 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989); Wall v. American Emp. Ins. Co., 250 So.2d 172 (La.App. 1 Cir.1971). See also DeVillier v. State, 590 So.2d 1184 (La.1991) (Parties challenging constitutionality of statute and seeking to enjoin its enforcement in St. Martin Parish required to be brought in East Baton Rouge Parish). “Causes of action” arising from ministerial actions or inactions seldom arise anywhere but in the district court in which the state capitol is located. Demolle v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, [supra].
Practical considerations recommend this result as well. A contrary conclusion could exact from nonlitigant taxpayers too high a price: al1fidisabled state government entrusted and obligated to protect all of its citizenry hobbled by the special (possibly even deserving) interests of a relative few. Certainly, such an effect could not have been contemplated by the redactors of our Code of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs in this proceeding argue that senior officials in state government failed to regulate the insurance and financial industries on a statewide basis. In light of our determination that the alleged causes of action arose in our state’s capital, we conclude that Rapides Parish is an inappropriate venue for the allegations pertaining to the state’s aberrant ministrations. A contrary conclusion could result in undue encumbrances upon the state’s governing apparatus at its very highest reaches, an absurd consequence we are certain could not have been intended by the redactors of our code of civil procedure. See generally Turner v. Collector of Revenue, 209 So.2d 301 (La.App. 4 Cir.1968), holding that branch offices opened by state tax collector did not have the effect of broadening venue options (which we apply by analogy to the effect of infrequent state inspections designed to alleviate the need for bringing all records to the state capital for inspection).

Abshire, supra at 630.

In Anderson, plaintiffs filed suit in Cal-casieu Parish against the Governor and the Legislature for failing to properly fund the indigent defender system in Calcasieu Parish, arguing that venue was proper under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) as Calcasieu Parish was the place where the operative facts arose. Anderson, supra. The court adopted the reasoning found in Abshire and held that because the plaintiffs were challenging the administration and funding of the Louisiana indigent defender system in general, although the class they sought to certify involved Calcasieu Parish only, the issue was of great statewide import, and therefore venue was only proper under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) in East Baton Rouge Parish. Likewise, the Third Circuit has also held that a mandamus action seeking to force the Secretary of State to perform its ministerial duties under the Election Code by placing something on the ballot in Cameron Parish must be brought in East Baton Rouge Parish under La. R.S. 13:5104. Cameron Parish Police Jury v. McKeithen, supra.

|1fiThat is not to say that all actions against the state or state agencies must be filed in East Baton Rouge Parish under La. R.S. 13:5104(A). There are instances where the cause of action will arise in another parish because that is where the operative facts occurred which support plaintiffs entitlement to recovery. In Ave-nal, supra, oyster fishermen owning leases in St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes filed suit in Plaquemines Parish against the Department of Natural Resources alleging that their leases were destroyed because of the intrusion of freshwater from the Mississippi River via the Caer-narvon Freshwater Diversion Project, which was authorized, constructed, funded and operated by the State. The court of appeal rejected the Department’s argument that the cause of action arose in Baton Rouge for venue purposes because that was where the Department made the decision to construct the Caernarvon Project. 668 So.2d at 1152. Instead, the court of appeal found that venue was proper in Plaquemines Parish because the plaintiffs were not contesting the decision of the Department to construct the Caer-narvon Project, but were simply alleging that the freshwater flowing through the project has damaged or destroyed their property, and that the control structure which permits the flow of water is owned and operated by the State, through the Department. Therefore, the court found that was where the operative facts occurred which support the plaintiffs entitlement to recovery, and therefore, that was where the cause of action arose for venue purposes under La. R.S. 13:5104(A). Id.; see also Ehlinger & Associates v. State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Dept. of Facility Planning and Control, 01-52 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01), 788 So.2d 644 (in suit against construction company and state agency, the court appeal found that venue was proper at the site of the construction site under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) because that is where the operative facts occurred which supported plaintiffs’ cause of action, regardless of allegation that the state agency’s decision not to pay for the work was made in Baton Rouge); cf., Robbins v. State Through State Land Office, 97-671 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/17/97), 704 So.2d 961, writ denied, 98-176 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1214 (affirming its decision in Abshire that La. R.S. 13:5104(A) “would render exceptionally rare the circumstances under which a state entity who opposes litigation away from home might be required to litigate issues of great import statewide, as opposed to causes of action whose immediate consequences merely reverberate locally,” but holding that lessee’s action against state levee board (lessor) had repercussions which merely reverberate locally in Concordia Parish where leased property was located; therefore, court applied venue provision of La. C.C.P. art. 80 dealing with immovable property to find venue proper in Concordia Parish).

Courts have also found venue under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) to be proper outside of East Baton Rouge Parish in suits against the PCFOB for future medical benefits. In Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Bd. v. Edwards, the court of appeal found that in such a suit, the cause of action arises for venue purposes under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) in the parish where the medical malpractice victim resides and where he has need for future medical care and related benefits. 39,149 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/15/04), 891 So.2d 85, 90. The court also noted that La. R.S. 40:1299.43(E)(1) grants continuing jurisdiction to the district court which rendered the final judgment in cases where future medical care and related benefits are needed by the patient. Id.; see also Louviere v. State, Louisiana Dept. of Educ., 04-1897 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/23/05), 923 So.2d 146, writ denied, 05-2258 (La.4/24/06), 926 So.2d 538.

^CONCLUSION

The Code articles governing venue are based on legislative considerations for allocating cases, according to the particular action and the particular parties, among the various parishes which have an interest in the action. Although the legislature has enacted general venue statutes to provide general rules and exceptions for a variety of cases, the rules found in La. C.C.P. arts 42, and 71-85 generally do not apply to state agencies. The general venue rule for state agencies is found in La. R.S. 13:5104(A), although more specific venue provisions for certain specific state agencies can be found elsewhere.

In this case, venue for these consolidated suits against the PCFOB is proper under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) in either the district court of the judicial district in which the state capítol is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in. the parish in which the cause of action arises. For venue purposes, in determining the parish in which the cause of action arises, we look to the parish where the operative facts occurred which support plaintiffs entitlement to recovery. Because these consolidated cases seek recovery based on administrative decisions of the PCFOB not to settle medical malpractice claims in a matter satisfactory to plaintiffs, which decisions, and failure to satisfactorily pay, were made in East Baton Rough Parish, we find that the operative facts which support plaintiffs entitlement to recovery occurred in East Baton Rough Parish. Further support for this decision is the fact that plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment which would have statewide, as opposed to purely local, effect. Therefore, under La. R.S. 13:5104(A), venue is not proper in Bossier Parish, where the plaintiffs are domiciled, or Caddo Parish, but is only proper under La. R.S. 13:5104(A) in East Baton Rouge Parish.

haDECREE

For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court’s judgment is reinstated.

REVERSED.

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.

KIMBALL and KNOLL, JJ„ concur in result only.

CALOGERO, Chief Justice,

Dissents and Assigns Reasons.

^Because I disagree with the majority’s finding that the plaintiffs herein “seek recovery based on administrative decisions” of defendant, Louisiana Patient’s Compensation Fund Oversight Board (“PCFOB”), I respectfully dissent. Plaintiffs herein are not complaining of simple “administrative decisions,” but instead assert claims sounding in tort, as is evident from the majority’s own description of the plaintiffs’ claims. The majority states as follows: “Essentially, plaintiffs argue that the PCFOB arbitrarily and capriciously failed to settle and pay their claims as required under the medical malpractice statute.” According to plaintiffs, the PCFOB violated its obligation to protect medical malpractice plaintiffs when it arbitrarily and capriciously (negligently or intentionally) violated its duty of good faith under La. Rev.Stat. 40:1299.44(D) to settle or pay their claims in a fair and reasonable manner, as well as its fiduciary duties to medical malpractice claimants.

IJThe majority’s characterization of the plaintiffs’ claims as “administrative” ignores the reality of the situation presented by these consolidated cases. The term “administrative” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, inter alia, as “having the character of executive or ministerial action.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Abr. 5th Ed. (West, 1983). Thus, Black’s equates an “administrative” decision with a “ministerial” decision. This court has most recently defined “ministerial” as follows: “Ministerial duties are duties in which no element of discretion is left to the public officer.” Hoag v. State, 04-0857, p. 7 (La.12/01/04), 889 So.2d 1019, 1024. The court further stated in Hoag that a “ministerial duty is a simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.” Id. Viewed in this light, the actions of the PCFOB complained of by the plaintiffs herein are neither ministerial nor administrative because the PCFOB clearly exercises discretion during its decision-making process.

The majority finds herein that, pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. 13:5104(A), East Baton Rouge Parish is the only parish of proper venue when an administrative or ministerial decision of a state agency is contested because it is both “the district in which the state capital is located” and “the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.” Even if the majority’s conclusion in that regard is correct, it follows logically that, where the actions of the state agency complained of are something other than administrative or ministerial actions, venue might be appropriate in some forum other than East Baton Rouge. In addition to “the district in which the state capital is located,” La.Rev. Stat. 13:5104(A) provides for venue in the “district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.” On the strength of the pleadings, accepting as true the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ petitions, the plaintiffs’ cause of action arose in Bossier Parish, where the plaintiffs allegedly suffered damages resulting from the defendant’s ^arbitrary and capricious failure to settle or pay their claims. Thus, I would deny the exception of venue and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

      . This Court has recently held that a wrongful death medical malpractice action against a political subdivision under La. R.S. 13:5104(B) arises at the time of death, and that therefore venue is proper in the parish where the malpractice victim died, even though all the wrongful conduct occurred in another parish. Wharton v. Ridgell, 05-0069 (La.1/19/06), 922 So.2d 461 (Justices Weimer, Traylor and Victory dissenting).

      . Courts that have found that La. R.S. 13:5104(A) is permissive and have instead applied the various general venue exceptions include: Taylor v. Clement, 02-561 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/4/02), 832 So.2d 1089, writ denied, 03-0038 (La.3/28/03), 840 So.2d 571 (applying La. C.C.P. art. 73); Williams v. State ex rel. Dept. of Social Services, 35,928 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 1206, writ denied, 02-1279 (La.8/30/02), 823 So.2d 955 (applying La. C.C.P. art. 73); V.C. Nora, Jr. Bldg. and Remodeling, Inc. v. State through Dept. Of Transp. and Development, 635 So.2d 466 (La.App. 3 Cir.1994) (applying La. C.C.P. art. 76); James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 597 So.2d 555 (La.App. 1 Cir.1992).

      . In Underwood, the tort victim’s injury by the initial tortfeasor allegedly was worsened by medical malpractice at the hospital where he was taken for treatment, and both alleged tortfeasors were political subdivisions of the state. In cumulated action in the, domicile of the initial tortfeasor, the medical malpractice tortfeasor claimed entitlement to preferred venue under La. R.S. 13:5104(B). The Court, concluding that the legislature did not envision the preferred venue of La. R.S. 13:5104(B) to entitle each political subdivision to require separate trials of the same operative facts, applied the doctrine of ancillary venue.to resolve this “unprovided for” situation.

      . We note that Article 84, while found in the exceptions to the general venue provision of Article 42. However, it is arguable whether these systems and funds are technically "state agencies.” In any event, this is a specific provisions for these specific entities, and this provision undoubtedly applies to them regardless of our holding today that the exceptions found in Articles 71-85 do not apply to the state or state agencies.

      . Three justices dissented, disagreeing with the application of Walls and Landry, which addressed "when” a cause of action arises, to the venue issue. As stated by Justice Weimer, Walls and Landry "addressed theories of recovery and when the cause of action arose, not the issue of venue which addresses a consideration of the most convenient situs for a trial and where the cause of action arose.” Wharton, supra at 466 (Weimer, J., dissenting) (citing Keele v. Knecht, 621 So.2d 106 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993)).

      . We note that several courts have held that in a direct tort action, venue under La. C.C.P. art. 74 is the place where the wrongful conduct occurred, not where the plaintiff happened to be located when the conduct caused his damages. In Chambers v. LeBlanc, this Court held that venue for a legal malpractice action was proper under Article 74 either in the parish where the alleged malpractice occurred or in the parish of the. attorney's domicile, but not in the parish of plaintiff's domicile even if the damage progresses in that parish. 598 So.2d 337 (La.1992). Similarly, in Keele v. Knecht, supra, medical treatment in one parish allegedly led to the deterioration of the patient's condition and death in another parish. The court found the mere fact that damages may have progressed to a parish otherwise unconnected with the proceedings and that the child died there did not make that parish a proper venue under Article 74. See also In re Medical Review Panel of Bechet, 609 So.2d 982 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ granted in part and judgment amended by 612 So.2d 71 (La.1993). Belser v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 509 So.2d 12 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987).