Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company
2:19-cv-14536
| E.D. La. | Jun 13, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs sued American Insurance Company (AIC) as the alleged insurer of Eagle, asserting James Becnel was exposed to Eagle asbestos products at Avondale and Hooker during July–November 1965 and 1966 work periods.
- AIC moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) a Products Hazard exclusion in the purported form policy precludes coverage; and (2) plaintiffs cannot show Eagle liability/exposure during the AIC policy period (July 1, 1965–July 1, 1966).
- No actual AIC policy has been produced; only an unauthenticated Certificate of Insurance was found. For the motions the court assumed, without deciding, that AIC issued a policy to Eagle and addressed the merits subject to later reconsideration.
- Material factual record includes depositions (Becnel, Avondale employees, former Eagle president) and experts: AIC’s underwriting expert (Richard Gain) opined the policy would have contained a Products Hazard exclusion; plaintiffs’ expert (Larry Klein) disputed that opinion.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that Eagle insulation boxes were on-site, Becnel worked near insulators using Eagle products at Avondale and Hooker, and causation experts (industrial hygienist and physician) opined that those exposures were significant and contributed to his lung cancer.
- The court denied both AIC summary-judgment motions without prejudice, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the policy contained the exclusion and whether Becnel was exposed to Eagle products during the AIC policy period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Products Hazard exclusion in the alleged AIC–Eagle policy bars coverage | Becnel: genuine dispute whether the exclusion was ever part of Eagle’s policy; expert disputes AIC’s position | AIC: policy would have been a form “K” with a Products Hazard exclusion that precludes plaintiffs’ claims | Denied without prejudice — factual dispute (expert conflict and lack of authenticated policy) precludes summary judgment |
| Admissibility / effect of unauthenticated Certificate of Insurance | Becnel: certificate and Eagle discovery responses create triable issue about policy terms | AIC: no authentic policy produced; the certificate is unauthenticated and cannot prove exclusion | Court treated policy existence as assumed for motion but noted certificate is unauthenticated; will reconsider if plaintiffs cannot establish a policy exists |
| Whether plaintiffs show Becnel had significant exposure to Eagle products during the AIC policy period | Becnel: deposition and co-worker testimony place Eagle boxes and insulators near Becnel during July–Nov 1965 and Q2 1966 at Hooker; experts say exposures were significant | AIC: mere presence of product boxes is insufficient; plaintiffs cannot specifically tie exposures to the policy period | Denied — sufficient circumstantial evidence and testimony create genuine issue whether Becnel was exposed to Eagle products during the relevant coverage window |
| Whether exposure to Eagle products was a substantial factor in causing Becnel’s lung cancer | Becnel: industrial-hygiene and medical experts opine exposures (including Eagle products) were significant contributing causes | AIC: challenges causation and linkage to Eagle during policy period | Denied — plaintiffs’ experts create a genuine factual dispute on substantial-factor causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show evidence creating genuine dispute)
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (insurance policies interpreted under Louisiana contract law)
- Bayle v. Allstate Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 2010) (insurer bears burden to prove applicability of exclusion)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (asbestos claim requires significant exposure and substantial-factor causation)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Texas Sec. Concepts & Investigation, 173 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1999) (broad interpretation of "arising out of" exclusions)
- Williams v. Boeing Co., 23 F.4th 507 (5th Cir. 2022) (plaintiff need only show a jury could find it more likely than not he inhaled defendant's fibers)