Guste v. Lirette
251 So. 3d 1126
| La. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Altercation at Tiger Audio between customer Ronald Guste and owner/employee Earl Lirette III; Guste alleges Lirette "violently assaulted and battered" him, causing a fractured hip and other injuries.
- Lirette and Tiger Audio sought defense and coverage from their commercial general liability insurer, Montpelier U.S. Insurance Co.; Guste amended to assert a direct claim against Montpelier.
- Montpelier moved for summary judgment invoking an endorsement excluding coverage for bodily injury "arising out of assault and/or battery" and acts in connection with prevention/suppression of such acts.
- Record includes petitions, depositions, and trial testimony; parties dispute who was the aggressor but agree a physical altercation occurred and Guste fell during that altercation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against Montpelier; Lirette and Tiger Audio appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assault-and-battery endorsement excludes coverage for Guste's injuries | Guste alleged intentional assault/battery in petition; therefore no coverage — plaintiff seeks recovery from insureds (and insurer via direct claim) | Lirette/Tiger Audio argued negligence theories (training/supervision) and disputed that an assault/battery caused the injuries | Held: Exclusion applies because injuries arose out of an assault or battery (regardless of who was aggressor); insurer not liable for coverage |
| Whether Montpelier had a duty to defend based on petition allegations | Petition also alleged negligent hiring/supervision, arguing those claims could trigger coverage and a duty to defend | Montpelier argued the petition’s factual allegations clearly alleged intentional assault/battery, unambiguously excluded by the endorsement, so no duty to defend | Held: No duty to defend — under the eight-corners rule the petition’s factual allegations unambiguously fall within the exclusion |
| Whether factual disputes about who was aggressor create a genuine issue precluding summary judgment | Lirette claimed evidence could show Guste tripped or was the aggressor, creating dispute | Montpelier relied on undisputed testimony that the fall resulted from the physical altercation; identity of aggressor immaterial to exclusion | Held: Dispute over aggressor is immaterial; exclusion applies irrespective of who committed assault/battery |
| Whether negligent conduct related to the altercation (e.g., failure to supervise) remains covered despite assault-and-battery exclusion | Lirette/Tiger Audio argued negligent theories could create coverage separate from the assault/battery | Montpelier argued the endorsement expressly excludes liability "arising out of" assault/battery, including failure to warn/train/supervise related to same | Held: Exclusion bars coverage for negligent conduct arising from the assault/battery; no separate coverage shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickey v. Centenary Oyster House, 719 So.2d 421 (La. 1998) (insurer may limit coverage; assault-and-battery exclusions routinely enforced)
- Jackson v. Rogers, 665 So.2d 440 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1995) (summary judgment for insurer where injuries arose from altercation or suppression of battery)
- Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp., 665 So.2d 1166 (La. 1996) (upholding assault/battery exclusion)
- Caudle v. Betts, 512 So.2d 389 (La. 1987) (definition of battery: intentional harmful or offensive contact)
- Alvarado v. Doe, 613 So.2d 166 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) (exclusion applies regardless of who precipitated incident; prevention/suppression also excluded)
- Proshee v. Shree, Inc., 893 So.2d 939 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) (assault/battery exclusions exclude any assault or battery regardless of perpetrator)
- Elliott v. Continental Casualty Co., 949 So.2d 1247 (La. 2007) (duty to defend determined by petition allegations; insurer need not defend where petition unambiguously excludes coverage)
- Steptore v. Masco Construction Co., 643 So.2d 1213 (La. 1994) (insurer must defend if petition alleges facts within coverage; otherwise no duty)