United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
DELTA COATINGS, INC.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
RULING AND ORDER.
A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is the Motion of Travelers Property Casualty
Company of America for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) filed by
Defendant. Defendant seeks an order from this Court granting
summary judgment in its favor on Plainitff's claims,
which relate to Defendant's denial of insurance coverage
in connection with an incident that occurred on December 29,
2013, involving two barges that were chartered by Plaintiff.
Specifically, Defendant argues that the three insurance
policies that were effective on the date of the incident
exclude coverage for an incident of this nature. Plaintiff
did not submit a memorandum in opposition to the Motion.'
For the reasons explained herein, the Motion of Travelers
Property Casualty Company of America for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 28) is GRANTED.
December 29, 2013, two barges - MCD-304 and LL-101 -
sustained damages while moored at the Momentive Specialty
Chemicals dock ("MSC Dock") on the Mississippi
River in Geismar, Louisiana. The barges also caused damage to
the MSC Dock itself. At the time that the damage occurred,
Plaintiff had contracted to charter the barges from Creole
Chief, Inc. ("Creole Chief).
insured Plaintiff under three policies at the time that the
damage occurred: a Protection and Indemnity Policy
("P&I Policy"), a Bumbershoot Liability Policy
("Bumbershoot Policy"), and a Marine General
Liability Policy ("MGL Policy").
the P&I Policy and the Bumbershoot Policy, neither of the
barges were listed in the Schedule of Vessels for which
coverage was provided by Defendant. Exclusion (D) of the
P&I Policy excludes coverage for any damage to or caused
by property chartered by Plaintiff. Exclusion (3) of the
Bumbershoot Policy excludes coverage for any damage to or
caused by property that was in the "care, custody, or
control" of Plaintiff. Exclusion (20) of the MGL Policy
excludes coverage for any damage to property rented to
Plaintiff. Further, Exclusion (5) of the MGL Policy excludes
from coverage damage to property arising out of the operation
of any watercraft chartered to Plaintiff.
its contract with Creole Chief, Plaintiff assumed liability
for damages to the two barges. Exclusion (A) of the P&I
Policy, Exclusion (5) of the Bumbershoot Policy, and
Exclusion (2) of the MGL Policy exclude from coverage any
liability assumed by Plaintiff.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "A party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion
by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the
record [-] including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, [and] interrogatory answers" - or by
averring that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the presence of a genuine dispute.
a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the
adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quotation
marks and footnote omitted). When the non-movant fails to
file a memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment, a court may accept as undisputed the facts that the
movant submits in support of its motion. See Eversley v.
MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988).
summary judgment is appropriate if, "after adequate time
for discovery and upon motion, [the non-movant] fails to make
a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the
non-movant fails to file a memorandum in opposition to a
motion for summary judgment, a court may grant the motion if
the movant's "submittals ma[k]e a prima
facie showing of its entitlement to judgment."
Eversley, 843 F.2d at 174 (citing Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574
(1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. 242; Celotex,
477 U.S. 317).
Court finds that the facts submitted by Defendant in support
of its Motion make out a 'prima facie showing of
its entitlement to judgment" and that, given the lack of
opposition by Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiffs claims. Id. Defendant has
demonstrated that exclusions contained in the three policies
under which it insured Plaintiff exclude liability for the
incident that is at issue in this case. The barges were not
listed on the P&I Policy's and the Bumbcrshoot
Policy's Schedule of Vessels, and therefore coverage is
excluded for those barges under those policies. Additionally,
because the barges were chartered by Plaintiff from Creole
Chief, damage to those barges is excluded by Exclusion (D) of
the P&I Policy, Exclusion (3) of the Bumbershoot Policy,
and Exclusion (20) of the MGL Policy. Damage to the MSC Dock
caused by the barges, due to their chartered status, is
excluded by Exclusion (D) of the P&I Policy, Exclusion
(3) of the Bumbershoot Policy, and Exclusion (5) of the MGL
Policy. Further, because Plaintiff assumed liability for
damage to the barges under its contract with Creole Chief,
Exclusion (A) of the P&I Policy, Exclusion (5) of the
Bumbershoot Policy, and Exclusion (2) of the MGL Policy
exclude coverage for any such liability. See Thermo
Terratech v. GDC Enviro-Solutions, Inc., 265 F.3d 329,
334 (5th Cir. 2001) ("When the language of an insurance
policy is clear, it must be enforced as written.").
has not opposed the Motion and therefore has not put forth
any facts to dispute the application or interpretation of
these exclusions and, consequently, to "show that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson,
477 U.S. at 250. Therefore, the Court finds that ...