215 So. 3d 405
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Resident Shirley Ann Marzell, obese and dialysis-dependent, fell from a wheelchair lift while being loaded into Charlyn Rehabilitation's van and suffered serious head injuries.
- Plaintiffs (Marzell and daughters) sued Charlyn and its auto carrier (Hanover); later added Charlyn’s long-term care/general liability insurer, American Safety & Indemnity Company (ASIC).
- Plaintiffs settled with Hanover and reserved claims against Charlyn and ASIC; an MRP found no deviation from standard of care.
- ASIC moved for summary judgment asserting the policy’s automobile exclusion (which broadly excludes injury “arising out of” ownership, maintenance, use, or loading/unloading of an automobile).
- Plaintiffs argued negligence sources independent of vehicle use (e.g., improper wheelchair, insufficient staff) made coverage available; they produced no summary judgment evidence beyond their pleadings.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for ASIC; the court of appeal affirmed, concluding the injury arose out of the “use” of the vehicle (loading/unloading) and therefore was excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automobile-exclusion bars coverage for injuries sustained while loading a patient into a van | Marzell: injury resulted from independent acts (wrong wheelchair, insufficient staff), not from vehicle use; loading persons not "loading or unloading" of "property" | ASIC: accident flowed from loading/unloading the van — an integral "use" of the automobile excluded by the policy | Held: Exclusion applies; loading/unloading a person is integral to vehicle use and the accident arose out of that use |
| Whether the policy's "loading or unloading" definition ("handling of property") excludes persons so that exclusion should not apply | Marzell: definition suggests "property" excludes persons; exclusion therefore inapplicable | ASIC: broader policy language and common sense treat getting in/out as part of operation/use of vehicle | Held: Court rejects narrow reading; getting in/out is integral to "operation/loading or unloading" and falls within exclusion |
| Whether multiple theories of liability (auto-related + non-auto-related) preserve coverage if any non-excluded theory exists | Marzell: when liability arises from an independent non-auto source, exclusion shouldn't nullify coverage | ASIC: the common element of loading/unloading links plaintiffs’ theories to vehicle use, invoking exclusion | Held: Because each asserted theory depended on loading the van, exclusion negates coverage despite alternative negligence theories |
| Whether policy should be construed in favor of coverage (or read as malpractice coverage) | Marzell: policy should be read to afford coverage; statute includes loading/unloading as malpractice | ASIC: policy is general long-term care/GCL, not purely malpractice; exclusion is enforceable absent statutory conflict | Held: General rule favoring coverage does not overcome clear exclusion; no conflict with statute or public policy found |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. City Parish Gov’t of E. Baton Rouge, 423 So.2d 1080 (La. 1982) (articulates "substantial factor"/"flow from use" test for automobile-exclusion analysis)
- Edwards v. Horstman, 687 So.2d 1007 (La. 1997) (applies test requiring the specific duty breached to flow from use of the vehicle)
- Bernard v. Ellis, 111 So.3d 995 (La. 2012) (insurance-policy interpretation is a legal question suitable for summary judgment; broad meaning of "use")
- Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 930 So.2d 906 (La. 2006) (policy exclusions may be resolved on summary judgment)