Gonzales v. Geisler
72 So. 3d 992
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Economy appeals a trial court ruling granting Geisler summary judgment that Economy provided coverage for the accident claim.
- Geisler, driving a Yukon XL owned by Geisler Funeral Homes with the company’s permission, struck a cart, injuring Gonzales in a hospital parking lot on April 3, 2009.
- Gonzales filed suit against Geisler and Progressive; Economy later added as a defendant to coverage dispute.
- Economy policy provides coverage for a non-owned automobile and contains an exception for vehicles made available for regular use to a household resident.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in Geisler’s favor on October 11, 2010; the judgment stated Economy provides coverage and defense; on appeal, the court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Yukon qualify as a non-owned automobile under Economy’s policy? | Geisler argues Yukon is non-owned due to the exception. | Economy argues the vehicle is not a non-owned auto because it’s regularly available for Geisler’s use. | No; Yukon is not covered under the non-owned automobile exception. |
| Does the household-resident exception apply to Geisler for coverage of the Yukon? | Geisler contends he is a resident using the vehicle for regular use. | Economy contends the exception does not permit coverage for regularly used vehicles provided to a resident. | Exception does not apply; policy does not extend coverage for regular use by a resident. |
| Is there any ambiguity in the policy language affecting coverage? | Geisler argues ambiguity should favor insured. | Economy asserts no ambiguity; policy terms are clear. | No ambiguity; terms unambiguously exclude coverage. |
| Was summary judgment proper given the policy interpretation? | Geisler sought judgment declaring coverage. | Economy contends no coverage under policy terms. | Summary judgment reversed; no coverage as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elliott v. Continental Casualty Co., 949 So.2d 1247 (La. 2007) (insurance-coverage interpretation; standard for summary judgment in policy disputes)
- Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 634 So.2d 1180 (La. 1994) (burden-shifting in insurance disputes; exclusions and coverage)
- Curry v. Taylor, 912 So.2d 78 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (non-owned automobile exclusions; regular use concept)
- Whitham v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 34 So.3d 1104 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (interpretation of policy terms; ambiguity and exclusionary provisions)
- Seymour v. Estate of Karp, 996 So.2d 1 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (regular use exclusion; duration of use and premium considerations)