(La., filed May 20, 2024): Urging the court to not overturn their previous decision in the case. Arguing that the Court’s original decision was not based upon policy, and it correctly interpreted the Louisiana Constitution as prohibiting the legislative revival of prescribed claims. Also arguing that the court’s original decision correctly identified the doctrine of contra non valentem as an available avenue of redress. The court’s original decision provided predictability for the availability and affordability of insurance in a state presently facing an insurance crisis.
