Daniels v. SMG Crystal, LLC
128 So. 3d 1272
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Daniels sued after slipping at the 2005 Essence Festival in the Superdome, alleging injury from an unknown substance on the floor. Defendants included venue owner/manager (LSED and SMG), event producers (Essence Festivals, FPLA, FPINO), and Maryland Casualty (insurer for FPINO).
- Third-party and cross-claims involved contractual indemnity and additional-insured provisions among SMG/LSED, Essence Festivals, FPINO, and insurers (Travelers and Maryland). FPINO claimed Maryland owed it defense and indemnity under the policy.
- Maryland moved for summary judgment arguing (1) its policy’s designated-premises endorsement limited coverage to specific addresses (not the Superdome), (2) contractual-liability exclusions precluded coverage for Essence, and (3) Maryland owed no duty to defend because FPINO had no liability exposure for the Superdome area.
- At the September 28, 2012 hearing the trial court orally: denied Maryland’s motion, granted FPINO’s summary judgment (finding ambiguity in Maryland’s policy), and granted Essence’s motion (finding SMG retained duty to manage/clean the Superdome).
- Maryland filed a motion for new trial; the trial court later reversed its denial and, by written judgment dated March 5, 2013, granted Maryland’s summary judgment, dismissing Maryland with prejudice based on the designated-premises endorsement and contractual liability exclusion.
- The appellate court vacated that March 5, 2013 judgment and remanded, holding the trial court erred procedurally by using a motion for new trial (which applies only to final judgments) to revisit an interlocutory denial of summary judgment; the proper method is to refile the summary-judgment motion before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland’s policy covers claims arising at the Superdome | Daniels/FPINO assumed policy covered FPINO’s operations and thus duty to defend exists | Maryland: designated-premises endorsement limits coverage to two addresses, excluding Superdome | Not reached on the merits — appellate court vacated trial judgment on procedural grounds |
| Whether Maryland owes FPINO a duty to defend/indemnify under the contract/additional-insureds provisions | FPINO/Essence argued contractual indemnity and additional-insured status triggered coverage | Maryland argued contractual-liability exclusion and absence of insured premises preclude coverage | Not reached on the merits — decision remanded for proper procedure |
| Whether revisiting a denied summary-judgment by motion for new trial is procedurally proper | Plaintiff implicitly relied on trial court’s March 5 judgment | Maryland used motion for new trial to obtain reversal of interlocutory denial | Held: Motion for new trial improper for interlocutory denial; reversing via new-trial procedure was error |
| Proper procedure to seek reconsideration of denied summary judgment | Re-urge or re-file the summary-judgment motion before trial | Trial court reconsidered via motion for new trial | Held: Reconsideration must be by re-filing the motion (not by new trial); vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Rhea, 785 So.2d 1022 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (motion for new trial applies only to final judgments; cannot attack interlocutory denial of summary judgment by new trial)
- Winston v. Martin, 801 So.2d 389 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (discusses procedural limits on motions for new trial)
- Magallanes v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 23 So.3d 985 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (trial court erred by reversing an interlocutory denial of summary judgment via motion for new trial)
- Young v. Dupre Transport Co., 700 So.2d 1156 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1997) (proper method to seek reconsideration is to refile the summary-judgment motion)
- Louisiana Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. BFS Diversified Products, LLC, 49 So.3d 49 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (distinguished — new trial permissible where original summary judgment was final)
- Bernard v. Ellis, 111 So.3d 995 (La. 2012) (illustrates that motions for new trial are available after final summary judgment)