KENNETH M. ALLAN
AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE, HUDSON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND SELISSA A. JAMES KENNETH M. ALLAN, ET AL
BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL
FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2015-04732,
DIVISION "A" Honorable Tiffany G. Chase, Judge
E. Mayeaux COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE.
Marjorie B. Breaux David O. Way Kenny L. Oliver OLIVER &
WAY, LLC COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.
composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Edwin A.
Lombard, Judge Roland L. Belsome
A. LOMBARD, JUDGE
the court in this consolidated matter is (1) the appeal filed
by Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers) from the trial court
judgment signed on December 21, 2016, granting the plaintiffs
partial motion for summary judgment regarding coverage on the
defendant's excess general liability and property
coverage policy issued to Chalmette Pet Wellness Clinic and
Hospital, LLC; and (2) the writ application filed by Bankers
seeking supervisory review of the trial court judgment signed
on December 21, 2016, denying Bankers motion for summary
judgment. After de novo review, we affirm the trial
Facts and Procedural History
Kenneth Allan, a veterinarian, is the sole member of
Chalmette Pet Wellness Clinic and Hospital, LLC (hereinafter
Chalmette Pet Clinic). On September 4, 2014, while
transporting a dog to his clinic, Chalmette Pet Clinic, Dr.
Allan was rear-ended by a vehicle owned and operated by
Selissa A. James. Dr. Allan, who was driving a vehicle titled
in his wife's name, sustained injuries.
19, 2015, Dr. Allan filed suit alleging that his injuries
were severe and disabling. The following were named as
defendants in the lawsuit: (1) Ms. James; (2) Ms. James'
insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; (3) Dr.
Allan's personal automobile liability insurer, Automobile
Club Inter-Insurance Exchange; and (4) Dr. Allan's
personal umbrella policy insurer, Hudson Specialty Insurance
Company. By supplemental and amending petition filed on
August 12, 2015, Christa B. Allan (the plaintiffs wife) was
added as plaintiff. In a second supplemental and amending
petition filed on December 15, 2015, Bankers was named as a
defendant, based on the insurance policy issued to Chalmette
Pet Clinic providing uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist
insurance coverage for vehicles not owned by Chalmette Pet
answered the petition, denying that its policy provided
UM/UIM coverage to Dr. Allan in this accident. Shortly
thereafter, Bankers filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, arguing that
Dr. Allan as owner of the vehicle he was operating at the
time of the accident was not a UM/UIM insured under the terms
of the policy.
response, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on whether the policy issued by Bankers to Chalmette
Pet Clinic provided UM/UIM coverage for the accident at issue
in this matter. In their statement of uncontested material
facts, the plaintiffs pointed out that at the time of the
accident: (1) Dr. Allan was the sole owner of Chalmette Pet
Clinic and was transporting a canine to the clinic for
treatment in his wife's personal vehicle; (2) Dr. Allan,
as sole owner and employee of the LLC (Chalmette Pet Clinic),
paid the premiums for the Bankers' excess liability
coverage; (3) Dr. Allan specifically purchased the Bankers
policy for its non-owned auto coverage to provide coverage to
Dr. Allan as an employee of Chalmette Pet Clinic when he
operated a vehicle not owned by Chalmette Pet Clinic; and (4)
Bankers issued a policy to Chalmette Pet Clinic which
provides non-owned liability coverage.
hearing on December 16, 2017, the trial court issued
judgments on December 21, 2016, denying Bankers' motion
for summary judgment and granting the plaintiffs motion for
partial summary judgment as to coverage on the Bankers policy
issued to Chalmette Pet Clinic. Bankers filed the instant
consolidated appeal and writ application.
courts review a judgment granting or denying a motion for
summary judgment de novo using the same criteria
governing the trial court's determination of whether
summary judgment is appropriate; i.e. whether there is any
genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of ...