327 So.3d 1020
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- On November 29–30, 2016, four‑year‑old Marcel Tennie suffered a medical emergency and died while in the care of Kristopher Carter; cause of death: homicide from complications of multiple blunt‑force trauma.
- Marcel’s mother, Markeeta Tennie, sued Carter and Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, alleging Carter’s horseplay caused injury and his failure to seek timely medical care caused Marcel’s death.
- Farm Bureau sought summary judgment, relying on two homeowner‑policy exclusions: (1) exclusion for bodily injury resulting from intentional acts by any insured; and (2) exclusion for bodily injury to any insured, defined to include relatives who are residents of the insured household (the “resident relative” exclusion).
- Record evidence (depositions of Carter, Tennie, and Carter’s parents, and other documents) showed Marcel was the insureds’ grandchild and typically stayed overnight at the Wales Street home about once to three times per month; parties disputed frequency but agreed on episodic overnight stays.
- Trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion and dismissed Tennie’s claims against Farm Bureau with prejudice; the First Circuit affirmed, holding Marcel qualified as a resident relative of the insured household so the resident‑relative exclusion applied, rendering other coverage arguments moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of resident‑relative exclusion | Marcel was only an occasional visitor; he was not a resident of the insured household. | Marcel was the insureds’ grandchild who routinely stayed overnight (1–3 times/month) and had membership in the household—so he is a resident relative excluded from coverage. | Held: Marcel was a resident relative; exclusion applies. Summary judgment affirmed. |
| Applicability of intentional‑acts exclusion | Carter’s intent is disputed; injuries/death may result from negligence (horseplay or failure to seek care), creating a fact issue. | Policy excludes bodily injury from intentional acts by any insured; insurer contends exclusion bars coverage if acts were intentional. | Held: Court pretermitted discussion as moot because resident‑relative exclusion dispositive. |
| Duty/breach for failure to seek medical care (negligence) | Carter had a duty to seek care and breached it; factual dispute prevents summary judgment. | Whether duty/breach caused death is a factual question, but coverage issues control. | Held: Moot given resident‑relative exclusion; court did not reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gedward v. Soniner, 728 So. 2d 1265 (La. 1999) (resident status is determined by all facts; focus on membership in group rather than attachment to a building)
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So. 2d 577 (La. 2003) (term "relative" in insurance contracts includes blood relations)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So. 2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment: court determines existence of genuine issue of material fact, not weight or credibility)
- Smith v. Northshore Reg’l Med. Ctr., 170 So. 3d 173 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2015) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Womack v. Mar Jay Prods., L.L.C., 298 So. 3d 745 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2020) (insurance policy interpretation follows contract rules)
- Bearden v. Rucker, 437 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1983) (residency inquiry emphasizes membership/relationships)
- Miller v. Superior Shipyard & Fabrication, Inc., 836 So. 2d 200 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2002) (insured bears burden to show incident falls within policy; insurer bears burden to prove exclusion applies)