United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
CHELSEA M. VERONIE
LAURA E. ALLEN, ET AL.
WHITEHURST, MAG. JUDGE.
A. DOUGHTY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants PV Holding Corp.; Avis Rent A Car System, LLC; and
Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC [Doc. No. 37]. Plaintiff Chelsea
M. Veronie's (“Veronie”) has filed an
opposition [Doc. No. 51');">1].
following reasons, the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case arises from an automobile accident which occurred on
August 1');">17, 2');">201');">16, in Lafayette, Louisiana. Veronie was
traveling west in the left lane of West Pinhook Road, and
Allen was traveling south on Jefferson Street. Veronie
alleges that Defendant Laura E. Allen (“Allen”)
disobeyed a stop sign and attempted to make a left turn onto
West Pinhook Road, pulling out directly into the path of
Veronie's vehicle, causing a collision.
further alleges that Allen was a permissive user of the
Hyundai Elantra rental car she was driving, which was owned,
maintained, insured, and rented by P.V. Holding Corp., Avis
Rent A Car System, LLC, and/or Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC.
Veronie alleges that Allen was employed by The American Red
Cross, that Allen was acting in the course and scope of her
employment at the time of the accident, and that The American
Red Cross is liable for the negligence of its employee Allen
by virtue of the doctrine of respondeat superior.
August 1');">15, 2');">201');">17, Veronie filed a Petition for Damages in the
1');">15th Judicial District Court for Lafayette Parish,
Louisiana. On September 2');">25, 2');">201');">17, the case was removed to
P.V. Holding Corp., Avis Rent A Car System, LLC and Avis
Budget Car Rental, LLC., (collectively “Movers”),
seek summary judgment dismissing Veronie's claims against
them for three reasons:
(1');">1) Movers bear no responsibility as either the rental
vehicle's Owner or Lessor;
(2');">2) There is no evidence that the maintenance of the vehicle
played a part in the accident; and
(3) Movers do not insure any vehicles.
opposes the motion on the grounds that there are genuine
issues of material fact regarding insurance coverage.
LAW AND ANALYSIS