Wisznia Company, Incorporated v. General Star Inde
759 F.3d 446
5th Cir.2014Background
- Wisznia Company, an architecture firm, was sued by Jefferson Parish for allegedly defective design and inadequate coordination on a performing arts center; claims included breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence tied to professional services.
- Wisznia sought defense and indemnity from its commercial general-liability insurer, General Star, under two identical policies for 2008–2009.
- General Star denied defense, invoking a policy exclusion for claims “arising out of the rendering of or failure to render any professional services” by architects/engineers and similar definitions of "professional services."
- The district court granted summary judgment for General Star, holding the parish’s petition alleged only professional services claims and thus was excluded under the policies; Wisznia appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo under Louisiana law, applying the eight‑corners rule and construing policy ambiguities against the insurer.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding the petition’s factual allegations related exclusively to professional architectural services and therefore the exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage and the duty to defend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether General Star had a duty to defend Wisznia in Jefferson Parish’s suit | Wisznia: the professional‑liability exclusion is ambiguous and the petition alleges ordinary negligence as well as professional malpractice, so General Star must defend | General Star: the petition’s factual allegations all arise from Wisznia’s provision (or failure) of professional architectural services, so the exclusion precludes defense | Court: Held for General Star — petition, liberally construed, alleges only professional services claims and exclusion unambiguously removes duty to defend |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki, 230 So.2d 253 (La. 1969) (insurer’s duty to defend is broader than liability and examines petition vs. policy)
- Mayo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 869 So.2d 96 (La. 2004) (contract interpretation and construing policy language against insurer)
- McCarthy v. Berman, 668 So.2d 721 (La. 1996) (professional‑services exclusion precludes coverage for claims arising from professional services)
- Louisiana Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. BFS Diversified Prods., LLC, 49 So.3d 49 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (relevant petition alleging defective professional services held to trigger exclusion)
- Gregoire v. AFB Constr., Inc., 478 So.2d 538 (La. Ct. App. 1985) (distinguishing ordinary negligence from professional‑services claims where petition alleges unsafe conditions)
- CBM Engineers Inc. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 460 So.2d 745 (La. Ct. App. 1984) (general duty to report dangerous conditions can implicate general‑liability coverage)
- Stone Petroleum Corp. v. [unrelated party], 961 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1992) (discussing interplay of federal notice pleading and Louisiana fact pleading in duty‑to‑defend analysis)