Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roadrunner Transportation Systems v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

May 10, 2017

ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
v.
ANITA BROWN D/B/A BROWNS TRANSPORT AND OOIDA RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC.

         APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2016-00879, DIVISION "E" Honorable Clare Jupiter, Judge

          Bradley J. Luminais, Jr. Jade C. McKeough WAGAR RICHARD KUTCHER TYGIER & LUMINAIS, LLP COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

          Christopher M. G'sell Alan J. Yacoubian JOHNSON, YACOUBIAN & PAYSSE COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.

          Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins.

          Rosemary Ledet Judge.

         This is an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a claim under a Motor Truck Cargo Liability Policy. From the trial court's judgment granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant-insurer, OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc. ("OOIDA"), the plaintiff, Roadrunner Transportation Systems ("Roadrunner"), appeals. The defendant-insured, Anita Brown, d/b/a Browns Transport ("Ms. Brown"), is not a party to this appeal. Finding merit to Roadrunner's argument that it was premature for the trial court to grant summary judgment given the lack of adequate discovery, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Roadrunner contracted with a third party, Sage V. Foods ("Sage"), to arrange for the transportation of a shipment of frozen rice from Little Rock, Arkansas to Ontario, California. Roadrunner, in turn, contracted with Ms. Brown to transport the frozen rice. The transportation schedule called for the shipment to be picked up on May 18, 2015, from Sage in Little Rock, Arkansas, and for it to be delivered by May 21, 2015, to a warehouse in Ontario, California. Pursuant to this contract, Ms. Brown transported the frozen rice product in a truck owned, operated, and maintained by her. Upon arrival at the warehouse in California, the frozen rice shipment was tested and found to be spoiled. Sage rejected and destroyed the spoiled rice on May 27, 2015. Sage demanded reimbursement from Roadrunner for the loss of the frozen rice shipment, totaling $42, 303.54, which Roadrunner paid.

         Contending that the loss of the shipment was the result of Ms. Brown's failure to keep the rice properly cooled while being transported, Roadrunner commenced this suit on January 26, 2016, against Ms. Brown and her insurer, OOIDA. In its petition, Roadrunner averred that Ms. Brown's negligence, which caused the loss of the frozen rice shipment, consisted of the following nonexclusive particulars: failing to properly use, operate, and maintain the truck or trailer; failing to sufficiently cool the product; and failing to follow standard industry practices regarding transport of frozen goods.

         On March 31, 2016, OOIDA answered the petition solely on its own behalf.[1]In its answer, OOIDA acknowledged that it issued a policy of insurance to Ms. Brown; however, it denied coverage of Roadrunner's claim. On June 15, 2016, OOIDA filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination that there was no coverage for Roadrunner's claim under the policy it issued to Ms. Brown. The only evidence OOIDA offered in support of its summary judgment motion was Roadrunner's petition and OOIDA's policy. In its memorandum in support of its motion, OOIDA cited the following provisions of the Motor Truck Cargo Liability Policy it issued to Ms. Brown:

INSURING AGREEMENT
In consideration of the premium paid hereon. . . . Underwriters hereby agree to indemnify the Insured for all risks of physical loss or damage from an external cause to lawful cargo in and/or on a covered truck while in their care, custody or control in the ordinary course of transit, including loading and unloading by the Insured, during the period of insurance specified in this Policy, while such covered [trucks] are within the contiguous states of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, Alaska (subject to condition 2) and Canada.
THIS INSURANCE BEING SUBJECT TO ALL THE PROVISIONS, DEFINITIONS, EXCLUSIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING.
** *
EXCLUSIONS
This insurance does not cover:
** *
5. Loss or damage caused by spoilage, contamination, deterioration, freezing, rusting, electrical and/or mechanical failure, and/or damage to refrigerated and/or temperature controlled cargo
UNLESS CAUSED BY OR RESULTING FROM:
(a) fire, lightning, or explosion;
(b) accidental collision of the covered truck with any other vehicle or object;
(c) overturning of the covered truck;
** *
(h) theft;
(i) stranding, collision, burning, grounding or sinking of ferry while the covered truck is on board.
* * *
11. Loss or damage caused by or resulting from mildew, decay, mold, insects, vermin, insufficiency of insulation or packing, improper securement, wear, tear, gradual ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.