Richard v. Brasseaux
2010 WL 4320424
La. Ct. App. 5th2010Background
- Auto accident in May 2005 involving Candice Brasseaux’s mother’s vehicles; Brasseaux allegedly grabbed steering wheel in response to the song “Swerve.”
- Two Farm Bureau policies at issue: automobile liability policy (A366310) and homeowner’s policy (DP 102732).
- Court granted Farm Bureau summary judgment on both policies, finding no express permission and no implied permission for auto use, and applying homeowner’s policy exclusions (intentional act; ownership/maintenance/use).
- Richards contest summary judgment, arguing genuine issues of material fact exist on implied permission and policy coverage.
- Policy interpretation relies on contract-interpretation principles; burden-shifting: insured must prove coverage, insurer must prove exclusions.
- Appeals court affirms grant of summary judgment; costs assessed equally among plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brasseaux had implied permission to operate the auto | Nero contends implied permission exists via acquiescence. | Brasseaux did not have implied permission; evidence shows no acquiescence. | No genuine issue; no implied permission. |
| Whether intentional act exclusion applies to Brasseaux’s steering-wheel jerk | Brasseaux may have intended only to move wheel, not cause collision. | Brasseaux intentionally jerked wheel; exclusion excludes results of intentional acts. | Intentional act exclusion applies; no coverage under homeowner policy. |
| Whether ownership/maintenance/use exclusion forecloses homeowner policy coverage | If use element is essential, exclusion defeats coverage. | Exclusion moot because intent exclusion already bars coverage. | moot/unsupported given other exclusion applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 707 So.2d 986 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1998) (contract interpretation and insurance coverage rules)
- Crabtree v. State Farm Ins. Co., 632 So.2d 736 (La.1994) (interpretation of insurance contracts; ambiguity in exclusions)
- Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So.2d 119 (La.1999) (burden of proving policy coverage vs. exclusions)
- Fontenot v. Duplechine, 891 So.2d 41 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (intentional act exclusions upheld)
- Perkins v. Shaheen, 867 So.2d 135 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (application of exclusions to insurance coverage)
- Canterberry v. Chamblee, 953 So.2d 900 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2007) (interpretation of exclusions in homeowner policy)
- Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Fertitta, 630 So.2d 763 (La.1994) (ambiguous provisions construed against insurer)
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. La. Dept. of Highways, 579 So.2d 985 (La.1991) (general contract-interpretation principles)