77 So. 3d 76
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- McQuirter and Hayes injured in Oct. 11, 2004 auto collision; Rotolo allegedly negligent and Micor employee acting within scope, with Micor as employer.
- Scottsdale issued a CGL policy to Micor; Cox was named as an additional insured under an endorsement for insured operations.
- Cox sought defense and indemnification under an indemnity/insured contract theory; installation/repair agreement with Micor allegedly created an insured contract.
- Scottsdale moved for summary judgment asserting the auto exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising from use of any auto by an insured.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Scottsdale; Cox appealed, seeking defense/indemnity despite the auto exclusion.
- Court amended judgment to dismiss Cox’s cross-claim and, as amended, affirmed the judgment against Cox with appellate costs attributed to Cox.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the auto exclusion bar Cox’s cross-claim for defense/indemnity? | Cox: insured contract exception salvages coverage. | Scottsdale: auto exclusion precludes coverage despite insured contract. | Yes; auto exclusion bars cross-claim; insured contract exception does not create coverage. |
| Is the policy’s insured-contract/contractual-liability language ambiguous or clear? | Cox argues ambiguity favoring coverage. | Scottsdale: language clear and unambiguous. | Policy language is unambiguous and enforced as written. |
| Was summary judgment proper in favor of Scottsdale on Cox’s cross-claim? | Cox seeks defense/indemnity under insured contract. | Scottsdale entitled to judgment as a matter of law. | Yes; summary judgment proper; cross-claim dismissed. |
| Does reading the policy as a whole undermine the auto exclusion? | Claims arise from insured contract against Micor. | Auto exclusion controls; contractual indemnity exclusion is not controlling. | Auto exclusion controls; no contradiction with policy as a whole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 66 So.3d 438 (La. 2011) (insurer’s duty to defend determined by petition allegations; eight-corners rule)
- Yount v. Maisano, 627 So.2d 148 (La. 1993) (duty to defend broader than liability; liberal construction of pleadings)
- Henly v. Phillips Abita Lumber Co., 971 So.2d 1104 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (eight-corners rule; contract interpretation principles)
- Calogero v. Safeway Insurance Co. of Louisiana, 753 So.2d 170 (La. 2000) (strict construction of exclusionary clauses when ambiguous)
- North American Treatment Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 943 So.2d 429 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2006) (policy exclusions interpreted for clarity; enforce as written)
- Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 958 So.2d 634 (La. 2007) (exclusions deemed enforceable where not conflicting with law or public policy)