311 So.3d 568
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- ANPAC issued a homeowners policy to Bruce and Ondrea Carpenter; the declarations limited liability for injuries caused by dogs not listed on the policy to $10,000.
- The Carpenters owned a dog, Skylar (owned since 2012); no dog was listed on the ANPAC declarations page for the new policy issued after their July 2016 move.
- ANPAC’s agent prepared an application using prior-year data, mailed it to the Carpenters for signature, and the Carpenters later received the policy; testimony conflicts about whether the agent was told about the dog.
- On April 21, 2017, Skylar attacked plaintiff Barbara Rudd, causing >$150,000 in past medical expenses; Rudd sued the Carpenters and ANPAC.
- At summary judgment the trial court held the $10,000 “drop-down” limitation unenforceable; ANPAC appealed and the appellate court reviewed whether genuine issues of material fact existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of $10,000 “drop-down” liability limit for an unlisted dog | Limit unenforceable because agent’s mistake is imputed to insurer and Carpenters lacked intent to deceive | Limit applies unless evidence shows agent lacked knowledge or insured intended to deceive; factual dispute exists | Reversed in part: summary judgment for plaintiff on enforceability was error; genuine issues of material fact exist and case remanded |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment (credibility/weighting issue) | Trial court correctly resolved as a matter of law | Trial court improperly weighed witness credibility and conflicting evidence | Trial court erred by weighing credibility at summary judgment; de novo review requires remand for factfinding |
| ANPAC’s motion for summary judgment / declaratory relief | (Rudd/Carpenters) Sought denial | ANPAC argued its limitation should be enforced as a matter of law | Denial of ANPAC’s motion affirmed; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Argonaut Great Central Ins. Co. v. Hammett, 13 So.3d 1209 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard)
- Van v. Ferrell, 58 So.3d 522 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2011) (definition of material fact)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (court should not weigh evidence at summary judgment)
- Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 956 So.2d 583 (La. 2007) (insurance contract interpretation follows general contract rules)
- Ilgenfritz v. Canopius U.S. Insurance, 243 So.3d 1109 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (insurer may limit coverage if not contrary to statute or public policy)
- Jones v. United Sav. Life Ins. Co., 486 So.2d 1110 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986) (insurer must prove false statements made with intent to deceive to void policy)
- Harris v. Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 75 So.2d 227 (La. 1954) (agent’s mistakes in filling applications bind insurer if insured lacked knowledge)
- Miller v. Preferred Life Ins. Co., 107 So.2d 323 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1958) (agent’s errors attributed to insurer when insured has no actual or implied knowledge)