Nelcome Joseph Courville, Jr. v. Lamorak Insurance Company (As Successor in Interest to the Liability for Policies of Insurance Issued by Commercial Union Insurance Company, Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, and American Employers Insurance Company)
301 So.3d 557
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Nelson Joseph Courville, Jr. sued for asbestos exposure in 2017 and died of mesothelioma; his wife and children substituted as plaintiffs asserting survival and wrongful-death claims.
- Under La. Rev. Stat. 22:1269, three insurers (Liberty Mutual, Wausau/Employer’s Mutual, and Zurich) were made direct defendants and moved for summary judgment; the district court granted all three motions.
- Liberty Mutual relied on a 2013 settlement with Reilly-Benton, arguing that settlement extinguished its obligations to Courville.
- Wausau moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs presented no specific evidence Courville was exposed to Reilly-Benton asbestos during Wausau’s policy period (7/1/1969–7/1/1972).
- Zurich moved for summary judgment asserting no specific Zurich policy was produced and that any Zurich policies to Houston Contracting contained a 36‑month disease-claim limitation barring liability for Courville’s latent-disease claim.
- The appellate court reversed the grants as to Liberty Mutual and Wausau (genuine issues of material fact / unenforceability of post-injury annulling settlement against tort victim) and affirmed as to Zurich (policy limitation bars coverage).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of a post‑injury insurer‑to‑insured settlement that effectively annuls coverage (Liberty Mutual) | Settlement cannot extinguish Liberty Mutual’s liability to Courville because public policy and La. Rev. Stat. 22:1262 bar retroactive annulment of coverage to the prejudice of an injured third party | 2013 settlement between Liberty Mutual and Reilly‑Benton resolved coverage disputes and extinguished Liberty Mutual’s obligations by agreement | Settlement unenforceable against the tort victim; Liberty Mutual not entitled to summary judgment (reversed) |
| Sufficiency of exposure evidence during Wausau policy period (Wausau) | Courville’s deposition testimony placing Reilly‑Benton on jobsites in the late 1960s–early 1970s creates a genuine issue of material fact on exposure during Wausau’s period | Testimony lacks the temporal and jobsite specificity required to show exposure during Wausau’s 1969–1972 policy period | Plaintiff’s testimony is sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute; Wausau not entitled to summary judgment (reversed) |
| Applicability of Zurich policy disease‑claim limitation (Zurich) | Plaintiffs relied on prior pleadings admitting Zurich covered HCC and argued Zurich could be liable | Zurich shows any issued policies contained a 36‑month disease‑claim limitation and no claim was made within that window | Limitation is a permissible policy term and bars coverage for Courville’s latent‑disease claim; Zurich entitled to summary judgment (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. Eagle, Inc., 158 So.3d 968 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (analysis of insurer‑to‑insurer settlement and limits of statutory protections, noting different result when injured plaintiff challenges settlement)
- Washington v. Savoie, 634 So.2d 1176 (La. 1994) (public policy bars post‑injury reformation/annulment of insurance that prejudices an injured third party)
- Gorman v. City of Opelousas, 148 So.3d 888 (La. 2014) (upholding policy terms that limit coverage for disease claims and stating coverage is limited by policy terms)
- Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp., 268 So.3d 333 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)