Dorothy Ross v. State of Louisiana Through the University of Louisiana System, University of New Orleans and Senator Nat G. Kiefer University of New Orleans Lakefront ArenaDorothy Ross v. State of Louisiana Through the University of Louisiana System, University of New Orleans and Senator Nat G. Kiefer University of New Orleans Lakefront Arena
(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Paula A. Brown)
Craig J. Hebert
Amber Mandina Babin, AAG
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1450 Poydras Street, Suite 900
New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Marne A. Jones
Mark A. Hill
THOMPSON, COE, COUSIN & IRONS, LLP
601 Poydras Street Suite 1850
New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
NOVEMBER 18, 2022
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 2, 2012, UNO executed a licensing agreement (the “License“) with O. Perry Walker College and Career Preparatory High School (“OPW“), which is owned and operated by Algiers Charter School Association, Inc. (“ACSA“), a Louisiana non-profit corporation. The License was grаnted to OPW for the limited use of the Senator Nat G. Kiefer University of New Orleans Lakefront Arena (the “Arena“) as an event space for OPW‘s graduation ceremony (the “graduation“), which was held on May 12, 2012. As a condition precedent to the granting of the License, OPW was required to obtain its own general liability insurance policy that named UNO as an additional insured and to furnish UNO with a certificate of insurance (“COI“) in order to demonstrate OPW‘s compliance with this condition.1
UNO filed an answer with affirmative defenses on September 18, 2013, wherеin it asserted that Ms. Ross contributed to her own injury. UNO further “reserve[d] the possibility and issue that other parties may have caused the condition to which [Ms. Ross] complain[ed] of . . . [therefore UNO] reserve[d] [its] right of contribution, subrogation, indemnity or insurance proceeds from other unnamed defendants or third parties.”
On January 31, 2020, UNO filed a motion for leave of court to file a third-party demand in which it sought to name ACSA and Lexington as third-party defendants. The district court granted this motion on February 3, 2020. Annexed to UNO‘s third-party demand were copies of both the License and the COI, the latter of which indicated that UNO was an additional insured under the policy issued by Lexington to ASCA. Based upon the attached License, UNO asserted that under clauses 3 and 19, ASCA was required to name UNO as an additional insured in its comprehensive general liability policy issued by Lexington and to indemnify UNO “against any and all claims, demands, expenses and liability arising out of injury or death to any person . . . which may occur on or about the premises.”2 UNO contended
On April 20, 2020, Ms. Ross filed an unopposed motion to amend petition for damages, which was granted by the district court on April 30, 2020. In the amended petition, Ms. Ross named ASCA and Lexington as additional defendants. Ms. Ross averred that her injuries were caused by the negligence of both ASCA and UNO in their failure to properly light the Arena and in their failure to warn of the dangerous condition. Relying on the terms of the License, Ms. Ross further alleged that ASCA added UNO as an additional insured to its insurance pоlicy purchased from Lexington; that the policy was in full force and effect at the time of her alleged fall; and that she was, consequently, entitled to make Lexington a direct party defendant by virtue of the Louisiana Direct Action Statute, codified under
ASCA filed an answer to UNO‘s third-party demand on May 29, 2020, and alleged that UNO was solely responsible for any potential harms arising under Ms. Ross’ petition for damages, which were due exclusively to UNO‘s acts or omissions. Lexington later filed an answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiff‘s amended petition for damages on January 5, 2021. While Lexington admitted to issuing an insurance policy to ASCA, with an effective coverage period of July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2012, Lexington denied that UNO was a named insured on this policy “under any term, condition or provision of the [p]olicy . . . .” As a result, Lexington posited that the Louisiana Direct Action Statute is inapplicable and, therefore, unavailable to Ms. Rоss for any claims against Lexington.
On April 29, 2021, ASCA filed its own answer to plaintiff‘s amended petition for damages. ASCA denied all allegations, admitting only that it is a non-profit corporation and that the OPW graduation did take place at the Arena. As it had in its answer to UNO‘s third-party demand, ASCA again asserted that UNO was solely respоnsible for any potential harms arising under Ms. Ross’ petition for damages, which it alleged were due exclusively to UNO‘s acts or omissions.
ASCA filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action with request for expedited consideration on November 2, 2021, regarding both the original and amended
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As previously noted by this Court, “[t]he peremptory ‘exception of no cause of action raises a question of law,’ and a court of appeal reviews the district court‘s ruling de novo.” White v. New Orleans Center for the Creative Arts, 19-0213 p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/25/19), 281 So.3d 813, 819 (quoting Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Porter, 18-0187, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/18), 248 So.3d 491, 495).
DISCUSSION
In its appeal to this Court, UNO proffers two assignments of error: (1) the district court erred in granting Lexington‘s peremptory exception of no cause of action; and (2) the district court erred in denying UNO any opportunity to amend its breach of insurance contract claim. Because we conclude that the district court erred in maintaining Lexingtоn‘s exception, we pretermit any discussion of UNO‘s second assignment of error.
Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action
“The function of the peremptory exception is to have the plaintiff‘s action declared legally nonexistent, or barred by effect of law, and hence this exception tends to dismiss or defeat the action.” Id. (quoting
“In deciding an exception of no cause of action a court can consider only the petition, any amendments to the petition, and any documents attached to the petition.” Green v. Garcia-Victor, 17-0695, p. 4, 248 So.3d at 453 (quoting 2400 Canal, LLC v. Bd. of Sup‘rs of Louisiana State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 12-0220, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/7/12), 105 So.3d 819, 825). As such, “[n]o evidence may be introduced at any time to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action.”
UNO argues that in its third-party demand аgainst Lexington it has set forth a valid cause of action for a breach of insurance contract claim. In support of this position, UNO relies upon the License and the COI provided by OPW as a prerequisite for issuance of the License. UNO asserts that the COI was issued by Lexington and that it is the best evidence that a contractual relationship existed between the two entities at the time of Ms. Ross’ injuries. Additionally, UNO points out that it objected numerous times to the inclusion of policy number 41-LX-027562703 as an attachment to Lexington‘s exception of no cause of action and that the inclusion of any such evidencе in support of the exception is strictly prohibited by
In response, Lexington, in both its memorandum in support of the exception and at the hearing on the matter, maintains that the COI was issued by ASCA‘s broker, not by Lexington.5 Notwithstanding the issuer of the COI, Lexington cites to Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc., 95-1574 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/19/97) 690 So.2d 154 for the proposition that Louisiana courts have consistently held that certificates of insuranсe are not part of the policy and do not modify or expand coverage. As in Citgo, Lexington points out, the COI at issue here contains an explicit disclaimer that would render ineffective any reliance upon this document as proof of a contract.6
As we previously noted, for the purрoses of considering an exception of no cause of action this Court must accept the factual allegations contained within the four corners of the petition7 together with any documents annexed to that petition to be true. As this Court noted in Milburn v. Emanuele, 12-0235, p.3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/13/12), 96 So.3d 638, 640, “[a]n exception of no cause оf action is reviewed based upon the four corners of the petition together with the attachments to the petition.” (citing 831 Bartholomew Investments–A, L.L.C. v. Margulis, 08-0559, pp. 9-10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/2/09), 20 So.3d 532, 537-38).
In the case sub judice, in its third-party demand UNO alleged that the damages sustained by Ms. Ross are covered under the License, that ACSA breached its obligations under the License and that Lexington breached its contractual obligation to provide coverage to UNO. UNO attached the License to the third-party
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and upon our de novo review, we find that the district court erred in maintaining Appellee Lexington‘s peremptory exception of no cause of action. Accordingly, the district court‘s judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceеdings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Notes
Specifically these clauses provide:
3. INSURANCE. Licensee and all of its subsidiaries and parent companies agree to obtain at its own expense and to keep in full force and effect during the use or occupancy of the premises the following insurance policies with a company authorized to do business in Louisiana;
EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE DUE UPON EXECUTION OF CONTRACT.
Workmen‘s Compensation Statutory
Comprehensive General Liability: $1.000.000.00
The сomprehensive general liability coverage is to include contractual liability applicable to the indemnification provisions of this license. The University of New Orleans shall be named as an additional insured for all coverage and ten (10) days prior to the Commencement Date the Licensee shall furnish the University with a certificate of insurance as evidence that the required coverage is in effect.
19. INDEMNIFICATION. Licensee and all of its subsidiaries and parent companies will protect, indemnify, save and hold harmless the University, its officers, agents, servants and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, expense and liability arising out of injury or death to any person or the damage, loss or destruction of any property which may occur on or about the premises or which may arise from, or in any way grow out of any act or omission of the Licensee, its agents, subcontractors, servants, and employees or the use and occupancy of the premises by the Licensee or anyone using or occupying said premises as a patron or an invitee of Licensee, and from any and all costs, expenses and/or reasonable attorney‘s fees incurred by University аs a result of any such claim, demand, and/or causes of action, except for such damages arising out of injuries or property damage caused by the sole negligence of the University, its agents and employees.
The disclaimer provides:
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT CONSTITUE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.