795 F.3d 452
5th Cir.2015Background
- Georgia-Pacific hired Advanced Services to demolish an idled plywood plant; Advanced was insured by Kinsale and Georgia-Pacific was an additional insured.
- A fire at the plant damaged equipment leased by H&E; H&E sued Advanced for property damage.
- Advanced filed a third-party demand against Georgia‑Pacific seeking indemnity for any damages Advanced might owe H&E.
- Georgia‑Pacific sought coverage from Kinsale for any indemnity it might owe Advanced; Kinsale denied coverage citing an insured-vs-insured exclusion covering claims for "property damage" brought by one insured against another.
- Kinsale sued for a declaratory judgment in federal district court; the district court granted summary judgment for Kinsale, holding the exclusion barred coverage. Georgia‑Pacific appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the insured-vs-insured exclusion bar coverage for Advanced's third-party indemnity claim against Georgia‑Pacific? | The exclusion is inapplicable because Advanced's third-party claim is for indemnity, not a claim for property damage brought by an insured. | The litigation included H&E's property-damage claims; Advanced's indemnity demand is part of that suit and thus falls within the exclusion covering property-damage suits between insureds. | The exclusion does not apply; an indemnity claim by one insured for another's property damage is not itself a claim for property damage brought by an insured against an insured. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martco Ltd. P'ship v. Wellons, Inc., 588 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment and de novo contract interpretation)
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (Louisiana rules for interpreting insurance contracts; enforce plain terms absent ambiguity)
- Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Conner, 973 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1992) (insured-vs-insured exclusion applied where claims were equivalent to those the insured itself could have asserted)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Busy Elec. Co., 294 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1961) (describing indemnity and subrogation concepts)
- Bewley Furniture Co., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 285 So.2d 216 (La. 1973) (indemnity requires showing one is not actually at fault and liability flows from another's fault)