Washington Ex Rel. Washington v. McCauley
62 So. 3d 173
La. Ct. App. 5th2011Background
- Louisiana Second Circuit affirms summary judgment for Greenwich Insurance; single-accident theory governs coverage.
- Dec. 7, 2006, McCauley, a Steve Kent Trucking driver, loses control after reaching for a cell phone; crash injures Washington and kills Richard’s passenger; Washington alleges extensive injuries and disability.
- Settlements: Greenwich pays $4 million to Washington; $1 million to Richard's survivors; remaining claim is $1 million against Greenwich for additional coverage.
- Policy: Greenwich provides $5 million combined single limit (CSL) liability coverage for any one accident; policy defines 'accident' as continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions; 'loss' relates to property damage.
- Trial court granted Greenwich summary judgment; plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment for additional $1 million; court held there was one accident and $5 million CSL exhausted.
- Appellate issue: whether there were one or multiple accidents/losses under policy terms, given two collisions and two claimants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Greenwich's CSL policy limits apply per accident or per loss | Washington/Bs argue two losses; $5M per loss, totaling $10M. | Greenwich argues one accident, CSL of $5M, already paid. | One accident; $5M CSL exhausted; summary judgment for Greenwich affirmed. |
| Whether 'accident' and 'loss' create separate coverage for Washington and Richard's survivors | Losses are separate per policy terms; per-person coverage. | Policy unambiguously caps all damages from one accident at $5M CSL. | Policy defines 'accident' as one event; no separate per-person loss; held that only one accident applies. |
| Is the term 'loss' applicable to bodily injury claims under this policy | Loss covers personal injury; confusion with property damage not allowed. | Loss covers property damage; bodily injury not within 'loss' definition. | 'Loss' pertains to property damage; bodily injury not a 'loss' under policy language. |
| What is the proper interpretation of 'one accident' under policy containing continuous/exposure language | Two separate collisions constitute two accidents. | Two collisions occurred nearly simultaneously; one accident under policy. | Facts show near-simultaneous collisions; court adopts one-accident interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anchor Casualty Co. v. McCaleb, 178 F.2d 322 (5th Cir.1949) (series of events may count as multiple or single occurrences depending on facts)
- Lombard v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 284 So.2d 905 (La. 1973) (prolonged project; multiple separate occurrences for property damage per owner)
- Tesvich v. 3-A's Towing Co., 547 So.2d 1106 (La.App.4th Cir.1989) (separate occurrences for oyster lease damages under Lombard framework)
- Society of Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Lafayette & Lake Charles, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 26 F.3d 1359 (5th Cir.1994) (occurrence determination across multiple claims and policies)
- Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 781 (5th Cir.1997) (multiple crew member claims; separate occurrences per policy limits approach)
- McKeithen v. S.S. Frosta, 430 F. Supp. 899 (E.D. La.1977) (per-occurence reasoning for single event encompassing multiple claims)
- Whetstone v. Dixon, 616 So.2d 764 (La.App.1st Cir.1993) (traditional vehicular accident analyzed for single vs multiple occurrences)
- Lantier v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 614 So.2d 1346 (La.App.3d Cir.1993) (supports single vs multiple occurrence analysis in liability limits)
- Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir.1968) (two accidents possible when separated by time and distance)
- Miley v. Continental Ins. Co., 645 So.2d 1166 (La.App.1st Cir.1994) (two accidents not applicable where collisions are time/space separated differently)
- St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Rutland, 225 F.2d 689 (5th Cir.1955) (causation vs effect theory for determining 'occurrence')
- Palmer v. Martinez, 42 So.3d 1147 (La.App.2d Cir.2010) (summary judgment standard and contract interpretation guidance)