Bryan Thayer Versus Andrew Nierman and Amica Mutual Insurance Company
24-C-311
| La. Ct. App. | Aug 14, 2024Background
- Amica Mutual Insurance Company sought supervisory review of the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment in a coverage dispute arising from an altercation between Andrew Nierman and Bryan Thayer.
- Nierman, while intoxicated, was allegedly attacked, suffered a head injury, and in what he claims was a self-defense reaction, bit off a portion of Thayer's nose.
- Amica denied coverage to Nierman for Thayer's injuries, relying on policy exclusions.
- The trial court denied Amica’s summary judgment motion, citing unresolved material facts about Nierman’s intent and the circumstances of the incident, and differences between the policies produced by Amica.
- Amica petitioned for a supervisory writ, which requires that there be no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for summary judgment to issue.
Issues
| Issue | Thayer's Argument | Nierman's (Amica’s) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Disputed facts remain; intent unclear | Policy exclusions bar coverage | Summary judgment denied |
| Whether Nierman’s actions were willful | Nierman acted intentionally | Was intoxicated/acting in self-defense | Genuine issue exists |
| Applicability of policy exclusions | Policy does not unambiguously exclude | Exclusions clearly apply | Ambiguity favors insured |
| Which policy language controls | Multiple policies create ambiguity | Presented multiple policies | Factual issue remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So.2d 119 (La. 2000) (insurer bears burden of proving applicability of exclusion within a policy)
- Beck v. Burgueno, 996 So.2d 404 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (summary judgment denying coverage requires no reasonable interpretation under which coverage could exist)
- Herzog Contracting Corp. v. Terral Riverservice, Inc., 918 So.2d 516 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (insurance exclusions are strictly construed against the insurer)
- Pizani v. Progressive Ins. Co., 719 So.2d 1086 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1998) (appeals review summary judgments de novo with same standards as trial courts)