Mangerchine v. Reaves
63 So. 3d 1049
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mangerchine plaintiffs purchased the property on July 26, 1996; Travelers issued a homeowners policy July 26, 1997–July 26, 1998.
- Plaintiffs sued March 30, 1999, asserting redhibition against sellers and real estate agencies and property damage/personal injury under Travelers’ policy.
- Travelers moved for summary judgment April 18, 2000, arguing no coverage; court denied it on July 11, 2000.
- Travelers filed a second motion for summary judgment September 2009 arguing lack of standing and preexisting damages; trial court granted, judgment signed Sept. 25, 2009.
- Appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the policy’s trigger is the manifestation of loss and that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether loss occurred during the policy period.
- The case was remanded for entry of a valid judgment dismissing Travelers if appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What trigger theory applies to this first-party policy? | Plaintiffs argue manifestation or injury-in-fact theories. | Travelers argues a different trigger; reliance on the policy language. | Manifestation theory governs (ambiguous term favors insured). |
| Is the date of loss during policy period disputed? | Damages manifested after sale; within policy period possible. | Damages predate policy; no coverage. | Material fact exists whether loss occurred during the policy period; summary judgment reversed. |
| Can redhibition allegations coexist with insurance coverage? | Redhibition claims based on preexisting defects do not preclude coverage. | Coverage should be barred if loss preexisted or not within policy. | Not legally inconsistent; both claims may coexist under proper trigger analysis. |
| Did pleading omissions doom coverage determination? | Petition adequately alleged concealed defects and subsequent damages. | Lack of specific dates could permit ambiguity or vagueness. | Not fatal; manifesting facts can be inferred; trial court erred in granting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 576 So.2d 586 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991) (term “collapse” treated as manifestation under first-party policy)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058 (La.1992) (trigger analysis for property damage claims)
- Pest Control, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 765 So.2d 485 (La.App. 5th Cir.2000) (advocates manifestation trigger for first-party property coverage)
- Rondo v. Top Notch Properties, L.L.C., 879 So.2d 821 (La.App. 4th Cir.2004) (discusses trigger theories in CGL; notes call for manifest theory in many contexts)
- Korossy v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 653 So.2d 1215 (La.App. 5th Cir.1995) (recognizes manifestation theory in construction-defect coverage)