RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

Art. 1037.Action Instituted Separately

Book II. Ordinary Proceedings · Title I. Pleading · Chapter 6. Incidental Actions · Enacted 1990 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 30, 2026

In one sentenceArticle 1037 provides that failing to raise a claim as an incidental demand doesn't forfeit the right to sue on it later in a separate action, except for the third-party-demand situation described in Article 1113 and the compulsory reconventional demand described in Article 1061.

Full Text of Art. 1037

Text size

When a person does not assert in an incidental demand the action which he has against a party to the principal action or a third person, he does not thereby lose his right of action, except as provided in Article 1113, and except as provided in Article 1061.

Amendment History

Acts 1990, No. 521, §2, eff. 1/1/1991.

Plain-English Summary

Most of the incidental-demand devices in this chapter are optional. If a defendant has a claim against the plaintiff and chooses not to raise it as a reconventional demand, Article 1037 says that choice doesn't cost the defendant the right to sue on that claim in a later, separate action. The same goes for claims that could have been raised as a cross-claim or third-party demand but weren't.

Two exceptions cut the other way. Article 1061 makes some reconventional demands compulsory — claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the principal demand generally have to be raised there or not at all. And Article 1113 imposes its own consequence when a defendant fails to bring in a third party who owed reimbursement, at least where the third party can show real prejudice from being left out.

The practical lesson is to check which of the two exceptions might apply before assuming a claim can wait. Most incidental demands are use-it-or-lose-nothing; a narrow but important set are use-it-or-lose-it.

Frequently Asked Questions

If a defendant doesn't file a reconventional demand, can the defendant still sue the plaintiff later?

Usually yes, under Article 1037's general rule. But if the claim is a compulsory reconventional demand under Article 1061 — one arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the principal demand — it has to be raised in the pending suit or it's lost.

Does failing to file a cross-claim or intervention forfeit the claim?

No. Article 1037's general rule preserves the right to bring the claim separately later, since cross-claims and interventions aren't subject to the compulsory exception that applies to some reconventional demands.

What happens if a defendant doesn't bring in a third party who owes reimbursement?

Article 1113 controls that situation specifically. The defendant generally keeps the right to sue the third party later, unless the third party can show it had a defense it lost the chance to use because it wasn't brought into the case.

Source & verification. Article text is reproduced verbatim from the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure (legis.la.gov). Enacted by the Louisiana Legislature. Last verified July 30, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: waiver of claim not raised as counterclaimcompulsory versus permissive reconventional demandfiling a separate lawsuit instead of a cross-claimuse it or lose it counterclaim louisiana