a third party benefit inuring to the aggrieved party would enter into the calculations of an efficient breacher. Id. Therefore, Professor Fleming concludes that “the policies underlying the law of contract do not dictate an application of the collateral source rule different from that in tort.” M In the case at bar, the Defendant seeks to claim that the collateral source doctrine does not apply to actions for breach of contract. In support of its position, Defendant cites Campbell v. Market Am. Ins. Co., 822 So.2d 617, 622-23 (LaApp. 1 Cir.2001). Defendant cites Campbell for the specific proposition that “rules applicable to recovery in tort do not apply to an action on a contract of insurance.” Id. at 623; see also Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 973 So.2d 39, 52-53 (La.App. 4 Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In Campbell, the court considered whether a
holding that contract debt  was not subject to an act in tort for conversion holding that failure to pay obligations under a contract is a material breach as a matter of law when parties explicitly state in the contract that failure to pay warrants termination holding that an award of fees under  411839 was mandatory where an insured is compelled to file a lawsuit by reason of an insurers refusal to pay  to recover for a loss under her insurance contract holding that a lawsuit for failure to pay on an insurance contract does not sound in tort holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit