Portrait of Sean P. Mount

Sean P. Mount

Partner

Portrait of Sean P. Mount
  • Overview
  • Insights
  • Events
  • News
smount@deutschkerrigan.com
New Orleans, LA — 504 593 0653
Download my vCard

With a special interest in defense litigation, Sean Mount enjoys addressing client problems and crafting a solution that is best suitable for their business. He defends corporate clients and insurance companies in a variety of litigation claims that can arise as a result of today’s competitive legal environment.

Sean's primary interest in the legal world is how it affects all aspects of society and life and knows each client and litigation matter is unique.  After assessing each dispute, he scales a defense that fits the legal and business needs of his clients; making sure their interests protected.

Building upon his extensive courtroom experience, he has successfully litigated a variety of matters in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas for various corporate and insurance clients. He also defends clients against class action and mass tort litigation cases involving chemical and oil emissions, extensive construction litigation for general contractors and professionals engineers, and complex insurance coverage and analysis.

He is a native and lifelong resident of Louisiana where he graduated from Jesuit High School before attending Louisiana State University.

    • Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center (J.D., 2001)
    • Aix-Marseille-III University (1999)
      • Aix-en-Provence
    • Louisiana State University (B.A., 1998)
    • Jesuit High School
    • Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center (J.D., 2001)
    • Aix-Marseille-III University (1999)
      • Aix-en-Provence
    • Louisiana State University (B.A., 1998)
    • Jesuit High School
    • Louisiana
    • Mississippi
    • Texas
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
    • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • The Supreme Court of the United States
    • Louisiana
    • Mississippi
    • Texas
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
    • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
    • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • The Supreme Court of the United States

  • Louisiana State Bar Association

    Mississippi Bar Association

    Federal Bar Association

    American Bar Association

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Texas State Bar Association

    Defense Research Institute

    • Construction Law Committee
    • Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee
    • Insurance Law Committee
    • Litigation Skills Committee

    Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel

    Texas Association of Defense Counsel

    Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association

    Council on Litigation Management

    Associated Builders and Contractors

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    Mississippi Bar Association

    Federal Bar Association

    American Bar Association

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Texas State Bar Association

    Defense Research Institute

    • Construction Law Committee
    • Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee
    • Insurance Law Committee
    • Litigation Skills Committee

    Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel

    Texas Association of Defense Counsel

    Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association

    Council on Litigation Management

    Associated Builders and Contractors

    • Inside New Orleans Magazine "Elite Lawyers" (Insurance Law), 2023

    • Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America©

    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

    • Inside New Orleans Magazine "Elite Lawyers" (Insurance Law), 2023

    • Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America©

    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

  • Statutory Immunity

    Sean achieved a significant legal victory on behalf of a client in Louisiana’s 4th Circuit. The court granted a motion for summary judgment, determining that his client was entitled to statutory immunity under Louisiana’s Equine Immunity Statute (LEIS) and dismissing all claims. The court acknowledged the lack of evidence against Sean’s client, highlighting the reasonableness of its safety procedures and its dedication to ensuring that participants could safely engage in equine activities.

    McKenzie v. Churchill Downs La. Horseracing Co., Orleans Parish No. 2019-04673

    Breach of Contract

    Sean secured dismissal of all claims against his client in a breach of contract case. After an extensive jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the court granted Sean’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims against his client.

    Spoliation

    Sean defended a multinational corporation in one of the first cases (and possibly the first) solely based on the issue of spoliation in the 19th Judicial Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. The plaintiff asked the jury for in excess of $5 million in damages, and the evidence included testimony from multiple experts on both liability and damages. After a nearly two-week trial, the jury returned with a zero defense verdict.

    Professional Liability

    Sean was successful in obtaining full dismissal of all claims against his client via a motion to dismiss in an adversarial proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana involving the sale of real estate and timber in excess of $15 million. His client, an attorney, had been retained by the bankruptcy trustee and faced allegations of negligence, gross negligence, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice.

    Thomas Brown, et al. v. John W. Luster et al., Adversary No. 07-5072 (W.D. La. Bankr. 2008)

    Construction

    Sean defended a contractor that was responsible for installation of a generator. The plaintiff filed suit based on breach of contract for improper installation and for significant bodily injury resulting in surgery arising out of a fall that she associated with the alleged breach of contract.  After the trial court denied a motion for summary judgment, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit reversed the denial and dismissed all bodily injury claims against Sean’s client.

    Lahare v. Valentine Mechanical Services, LLC, 17-289, 223 So.3d 773 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2017)

    Construction

    Sean defended a contractor in the 19th JDC for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana in a case involving claims pertaining to defects and deficiencies in the construction of a building. The plaintiff sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The case was tried before a jury, resulting in a zero verdict for his client.

    Construction

    Sean defended a contractor in Jackson County, Mississippi, against a claim seeking in excess of $1 million for alleged construction defects and deficiencies. The jury returned a favorable defense verdict in favor of Sean’s client.

    Insurance Coverage

    Sean has been successful in obtaining dismissal of numerous claims via motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss in cases involving first-party insurance coverage disputes within the context of construction, property (residential and commercial), oil and marine, auto and uninsured motorist (UM) claims.

    Sean has also successfully litigated several hundred first-party insurance cases involving damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike and Isaac for multiple clients in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

    Auto Liability

    Sean defended a driver involved in an accident in the 24th Judicial District Court for Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. Despite what appeared to be adverse liability, through the impeachment of the plaintiff and his physicians, Sean was able to secure a zero verdict.

    Auto Liability

    Sean defended a company employee involved in an auto accident case involving a stipulation of liability in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. The jury returned with an extremely favorable defense verdict against the primary plaintiff and a zero verdict against the other plaintiff's main claims.

    Premises Liability

    Sean defended a retailer in a falling merchandise case. After a trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff finding liability and the maximum amount of damages. On appeal, the Louisiana First Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed all claims against Sean’s clients.

    Frazier v. Dollar General Corporation, 2017 WL 2403045, 2016-1628 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2017)

    Premises Liability

    Sean defended a retail client against a premises liability claim involving falling merchandise in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in which the plaintiff underwent surgery. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of Sean’s client.

    Premises Liability

    Sean defended a retail client against a premises liability claim involving a slip and fall where the plaintiff alleged significant injuries and damages.  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted Sean’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against his client.

    General Negligence

    Sean defended a client against a claim involving allegations of negligent auto repair in the 15th Judicial Court for the Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana. Sean secured a zero defense verdict for his client at trial.

    Statutory Immunity

    Sean achieved a significant legal victory on behalf of a client in Louisiana’s 4th Circuit. The court granted a motion for summary judgment, determining that his client was entitled to statutory immunity under Louisiana’s Equine Immunity Statute (LEIS) and dismissing all claims. The court acknowledged the lack of evidence against Sean’s client, highlighting the reasonableness of its safety procedures and its dedication to ensuring that participants could safely engage in equine activities.

    McKenzie v. Churchill Downs La. Horseracing Co., Orleans Parish No. 2019-04673

    Breach of Contract

    Sean secured dismissal of all claims against his client in a breach of contract case. After an extensive jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the court granted Sean’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims against his client.

    Spoliation

    Sean defended a multinational corporation in one of the first cases (and possibly the first) solely based on the issue of spoliation in the 19th Judicial Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. The plaintiff asked the jury for in excess of $5 million in damages, and the evidence included testimony from multiple experts on both liability and damages. After a nearly two-week trial, the jury returned with a zero defense verdict.

    Professional Liability

    Sean was successful in obtaining full dismissal of all claims against his client via a motion to dismiss in an adversarial proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana involving the sale of real estate and timber in excess of $15 million. His client, an attorney, had been retained by the bankruptcy trustee and faced allegations of negligence, gross negligence, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice.

    Thomas Brown, et al. v. John W. Luster et al., Adversary No. 07-5072 (W.D. La. Bankr. 2008)

    Construction

    Sean defended a contractor that was responsible for installation of a generator. The plaintiff filed suit based on breach of contract for improper installation and for significant bodily injury resulting in surgery arising out of a fall that she associated with the alleged breach of contract.  After the trial court denied a motion for summary judgment, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit reversed the denial and dismissed all bodily injury claims against Sean’s client.

    Lahare v. Valentine Mechanical Services, LLC, 17-289, 223 So.3d 773 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2017)

    Construction

    Sean defended a contractor in the 19th JDC for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana in a case involving claims pertaining to defects and deficiencies in the construction of a building. The plaintiff sought hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The case was tried before a jury, resulting in a zero verdict for his client.

    Construction

    Sean defended a contractor in Jackson County, Mississippi, against a claim seeking in excess of $1 million for alleged construction defects and deficiencies. The jury returned a favorable defense verdict in favor of Sean’s client.

    Insurance Coverage

    Sean has been successful in obtaining dismissal of numerous claims via motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss in cases involving first-party insurance coverage disputes within the context of construction, property (residential and commercial), oil and marine, auto and uninsured motorist (UM) claims.

    Sean has also successfully litigated several hundred first-party insurance cases involving damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike and Isaac for multiple clients in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

    Auto Liability

    Sean defended a driver involved in an accident in the 24th Judicial District Court for Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. Despite what appeared to be adverse liability, through the impeachment of the plaintiff and his physicians, Sean was able to secure a zero verdict.

    Auto Liability

    Sean defended a company employee involved in an auto accident case involving a stipulation of liability in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. The jury returned with an extremely favorable defense verdict against the primary plaintiff and a zero verdict against the other plaintiff's main claims.

    Premises Liability

    Sean defended a retailer in a falling merchandise case. After a trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff finding liability and the maximum amount of damages. On appeal, the Louisiana First Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed all claims against Sean’s clients.

    Frazier v. Dollar General Corporation, 2017 WL 2403045, 2016-1628 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2017)

    Premises Liability

    Sean defended a retail client against a premises liability claim involving falling merchandise in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in which the plaintiff underwent surgery. The jury returned a zero verdict in favor of Sean’s client.

    Premises Liability

    Sean defended a retail client against a premises liability claim involving a slip and fall where the plaintiff alleged significant injuries and damages.  The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted Sean’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against his client.

    General Negligence

    Sean defended a client against a claim involving allegations of negligent auto repair in the 15th Judicial Court for the Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana. Sean secured a zero defense verdict for his client at trial.

Firm Highlights

  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Experience

    Secured Dismissal on Prematurity Exception in Medical Transport Injury Case

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.