APPEAL
FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST.
MARTIN, NO. 80997 HONORABLE VINCENT J. BORNE, DISTRICT JUDGE
REVERSED,
RENDERED, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Michael P. Corry, Sr. J. Daniel Siefker, Jr. Briney Foret
Corry COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Allstate Insurance
Company
Todd
A. Townsley The Townsley Law Firm COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Monty Rivers Brenda Rivers
John
W. Perry, Jr. Daniel J. Balhoff John W. Perry, III Perry,
Balhoff, Mengis & Burns, LLC COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Monty Rivers Brenda Rivers
Charles C. Garrison Caffery, Oubre, Campbell & Garrison,
L.L.P. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Louisiana Farm
Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Michael J. Daigle
Ian A.
Macdonald Jones Walker COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:
Progressive Security Insurance Company
C.
Shannon Hardy John W. Penny, Jr. Penny & Hardy COUNSEL
FOR INTERVENOR-APPELLANT: Angel Landry Allemand on behalf of
her minor child, Megan Daigle
Court
composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and
John E. Conery, Judges.
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE
At
issue in this appeal is the trial court's grant of
summary judgment dismissing the insurer of two defendants on
the basis that the insurer's policy did not provide
coverage for the minor tortfeasor and its denial of the
plaintiffs' cross motion on the same issue. The
plaintiffs appeal, arguing the insurer waived its coverage
defense; therefore, its policy provides coverage for their
claims. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of
the trial court.
FACTS
On
September 22, 2013, Megan Daigle failed to obey a stop sign
and collided with a vehicle driven by Monty Rivers. When the
accident occurred, Megan was a minor. She was driving a
vehicle owned by and provided for her sole use by her father,
Michael Daigle. Mr. Daigle and Angel Allemand, Megan's
mother, were divorced, and Mrs. Allemand had legal custody of
Megan. Megan lived with Mrs. Allemand and her husband, Harris
Allemand.
Mr.
Rivers was injured in the accident, and he and his wife filed
suit against Mr. Daigle; [1] his insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau
Insurance Company; and Progressive Insurance Company, their
uninsured/underinsured insurer. On March 25, 2014, the Rivers
added Mrs. Allemand as a defendant. Thereafter, on May 9,
2014, they added Megan and Allstate Insurance Company, Mr.
and Mrs. Allemand's insurer, as defendants.
Counsel
hired by Allstate filed an answer on behalf of Allstate, Mrs.
Allemand, and Megan on May 22, 2014. Thereafter, in June
2014, Allstate notified the Allemands and Megan that its
policy excluded coverage because Megan was driving a vehicle
provided to her by her father. Allstate issued a reservation
of rights and hired an attorney to provide a defense to Mrs.
Allemand and Megan.
In
2015, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment asserting
its policy does not provide coverage for the accident because
when the accident occurred, Megan was driving a vehicle owned
by her father that he provided for her regular use. The
motion asserts that although Megan satisfies its policy's
definition of an insured, she was not operating an insured
vehicle when the accident occurred; therefore, the policy
does not provide coverage for the accident. Allstate also
filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that it
did not waive the coverage defense because it urged the
defense timely and its actions did not prejudice the
Allemands. The Rivers then filed a motion for partial summary
judgment in which they argue that Allstate waived its
coverage defense because Allstate filed an answer without
notifying Mrs. Allemand and Megan of its coverage defense and
without hiring separate counsel to represent them in this
litigation.
After a
hearing, the trial court awarded summary judgment and partial
summary judgment in favor of Allstate and denied partial
summary judgment as requested by the Rivers. The Rivers
appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appellate
courts review summary judgments de novo, using the same
criteria as the trial court. Gray v. Am. Nat'l Prop.
& Cas. Co., 07-1670 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 839. In
order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving
party must "show that there is no genuine issue as to
material fact and that [he] is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B)(2).
Generally, interpretation of an insurance contract concerns a
legal question that can be resolved in the framework of a
motion for summary judgment. Cutsinger v. Redfern,
08-2607 (La. 5/22/09), 12 So.3d 945. Insurance policies are
interpreted according to the general rules of contract
interpretation, and ...