382 So.3d 1052
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- Multiple plaintiffs were injured in a July 28, 2017 construction elevator/hoist accident at the Standard Condominium project, where Woodward Design + Build, LLC was the general contractor and Eagle Access, LLC provided the hoist under a subcontract.
- Woodward was required to obtain insurance via a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (CCIP or "Wrap-Up" policy) from Houston Casualty Company (HCC) for the entire project.
- Eagle’s subcontract referenced the CCIP, but enrollment in the CCIP was required for coverage. Eagle ultimately was not enrolled because it did not follow the enrollment procedure and was later explicitly excluded by Woodward.
- Eagle had its own commercial general liability (CGL) policy through The Burlington Insurance Company (TBIC), which contained a Wrap-Up Exclusion precluding coverage for work to be insured under a consolidated (wrap-up) program.
- Plaintiffs sued Woodward, HCC, Eagle, and TBIC, arguing that Eagle should be covered by TBIC's CGL policy because it was not insured under the CCIP. TBIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the Wrap-Up Exclusion unambiguously barred coverage.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for TBIC, finding the Wrap-Up Exclusion applied. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of TBIC's Wrap-Up Exclusion | Eagle not CCIP insured because expressly excluded; thus, TBIC exclusion does not apply | Exclusion applies to works intended to be insured, regardless of actual enrollment | Exclusion applies; coverage is barred even if not enrolled |
| Ambiguity of the Wrap-Up Exclusion | Exclusion is vague and ambiguous; should be read in favor of coverage | Exclusion is clear and unambiguous on its face | Court found exclusion clear and unambiguous |
| Intent and Reasonable Expectations of the Parties | Eagle reasonably believed TBIC covered the work if CCIP didn’t | Policy language controls regardless of subjective intent | Policy enforced as written; subjective intent does not control |
| Public Policy and Double Premiums | Eagle could be uninsured despite paying for two policies; equity favors allowing coverage | Policy exclusions are enforceable absent public policy conflict | No public policy conflict; exclusion enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 930 So.2d 906 (La. 2006) (summarizing Louisiana principles for construing insurance policies)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (summary judgment standard; genuine issues of material fact)
- Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 719 So.2d 437 (La. 1998) (plain meaning controls in insurance contract interpretation)
- Reynolds v. Select Props., 634 So.2d 1180 (La. 1994) (policy exclusions are strictly construed against insurers)