Art. 1041.When Prescribed Incidental Or Third Party Demand Is Not Barred
Book II. Ordinary Proceedings · Title I. Pleading · Chapter 6. Incidental Actions · Last amended 1974 · Last verified July 30, 2026
Full Text of Art. 1041
Amendment History
Added by Acts 1970, No. 472, §1. Amended by Acts 1974, No. 86, §1.
Plain-English Summary
Prescription — Louisiana's version of a statute of limitations — can run out while a lawsuit is already underway. Article 1041 gives incidental demands a narrow grace period so a defendant, cross-claimant, or third-party defendant doesn't lose a claim purely because time ran out after the case started but before the incidental demand could be filed.
Two conditions apply. First, the claim can't have already been prescribed or perempted at the time the main demand was filed — Article 1041 revives a claim's viability for a limited window; it doesn't resurrect one that was already dead. Second, the incidental demand has to be filed within ninety days of service of the main demand. For a third-party defendant asserting a claim, the ninety days run instead from service of process of the third-party demand, since that's the moment the third-party defendant entered the case.
This article's own history shows why it needed a new number: it was redesignated here from what had been Article 1067, an older location within this chapter. Other articles in this chapter that once pointed to Article 1067 now point to Article 1041 instead, since the substance moved but didn't change.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an incidental demand be filed even after the underlying prescriptive period has technically run?
Yes, within limits. Article 1041 saves it if the claim wasn't already barred when the main demand was filed and the incidental demand is filed within ninety days of service of the main demand.
What deadline applies to a third-party defendant's own claims under Article 1041?
Ninety days from service of process of the third-party demand, rather than from service of the main demand.
Does Article 1041 revive a claim that had already prescribed before the lawsuit was filed?
No. The claim must not have been barred at the time the main demand was filed. Article 1041 only protects against prescription that runs after the suit is already pending.
Why do some articles in this chapter refer to Article 1067 instead of Article 1041?
They don't anymore — Article 1041 itself was redesignated from the old Article 1067 number. Any live cross-reference to the underlying ninety-day relation-back rule now points to Article 1041.