262 So. 3d 429
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Fleming Construction contracted with Jefferson Parish to replace/restore sewer mains; contract required Fleming to procure CGL and excess policies naming the Parish as additional insured and to indemnify the Parish (except for parish's sole negligence).
- Fleming obtained a $1,000,000 Amerisure CGL policy and a $5,000,000 Alterra excess policy covering Aug 1, 2014–Aug 1, 2015.
- Fleming foreman Shane Salathe fell ~30 feet in a wet well on Feb 5, 2015, suffering severe injuries; Salathe sued the Parish (and later added AAIC, Amerisure, and Alterra as defendants based on their contractual obligations to defend/indemnify the Parish).
- Fleming’s insurers (Amerisure and Alterra) moved for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the contractual indemnity and insuring obligations in the Parish–Fleming contract were void under Louisiana law; they attached a parish resolution but did not attach the insurance policies themselves or an authenticated contract.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment and a written judgment dismissed Salathe’s claims against the insurers; appellants (Salathe, the Parish, and AAIC) appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fleming’s insurers’ motion could extinguish Salathe’s direct claims against them | Salathe: motion sought only a declaration the contract terms were void, not dismissal of his claims; summary judgment cannot decide issues not raised | Insurers: contractual indemnity/insuring obligations are void and thus no coverage/liability to insure/indemnify | Reversed as to Salathe — summary judgment could not be rendered for claims not raised in the motion; Salathe’s claims remain pending |
| Whether the Parish remains an additional insured under the CGL and excess policies | Parish/AAIC: even if indemnity clause void, the requirement that Parish be named as additional insured survives and statutory law allows such coverage | Insurers: contract and resolution render indemnity and insuring obligations void; summary judgment appropriate to declare no coverage | Reversed — insurers failed to meet summary-judgment burden (did not produce policies or authenticated contract resolution); genuine legal issue remains about coverage/additional-insured status |
| Whether the movers met their summary-judgment evidentiary burden | Salathe/Parish: movers failed to submit required supporting documents (policies, authenticated contract) and thus cannot obtain summary judgment on coverage | Insurers: argued legal invalidity of contract provisions; contended attached resolution supported their motion | Court: movers did not satisfy burden under La. C.C.P. art. 966 — missing policies/authentication; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Heard, 809 So.2d 943 (La. 2002) (insurance-policy interpretation is usually a legal question appropriate for summary judgment)
- Davis v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 128 So.3d 471 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (no-coverage summary judgment inappropriate if a reasonable interpretation could afford coverage)
- Reynolds v. Select Props., 634 So.2d 1180 (La. 1994) (summary judgment denying coverage requires no reasonable construction supporting coverage)
- Rand v. City of New Orleans, 173 So.3d 1148 (La. 2015) (summary judgment limited to issues raised in the motion)