Riess LeMieux Recently Prevails on Supervisory Writ Application to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, Overturning a Trial Court’s Denial of the Firm Client’s Demand for Defense and Indemnity as an Additional Insured Under a Subcontractor’s Auto Policy.
Authors: Michael R. C. Riess, Robert W. Tschirn and Michael A. Levatino Jr.
On April 10, 2023, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of Riess LeMieux’s Client’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Subcontractor’s Insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify the firm client under the terms of the Subcontractor’s auto policy. With this, the Court’s reversal and granting of the Motion, the Firm Client is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs expended in its prior efforts to enforce the Insurer’s duty to defense and indemnity to the Firm Client, as an additional named insured on the policy.
The dispute arose from a rear-end collision that occurred on a public works project. The Firm Client was the general contractor on the project and the Insurer at issue was that of the Firm Client’s Subcontractor, Trucking Company (“Trucking Company”), brought in to haul materials on the project. Pursuant to the parties’ subcontract, the Trucking Company was required to maintain insurance coverage, and to name the Firm Client as an additional insured on its policy. The Trucking Company in turn entered into a separate agreement with another contractor (“Sub-Trucking Company”) to perform portions of the hauling and trucking duties of trucking contractor under the subcontract agreement with the firm client. The plaintiffs in this case were rear-ended by the Sub-Trucking Company’s driver while he was allegedly operating a vehicle which had been hired by the Trucking Company Subcontractor of the firm client (essentially a “sub-subcontractor”). The plaintiffs filed suit naming the Firm Client, the Trucking Company, the Trucking Company’s Insurance Company, the Sub-Trucking Company, and the Sub-Trucking Company’s driver as defendants. Both the Insurance Company and the Firm Client filed motions for partial summary judgment seeking determination of the defense and indemnity and insurance issues related to the case.
The Firm Client’s Motion sought a judgment that (1) it could not be held liable for the accident, (2) Trucking Company’s Insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify the Firm Client under the terms of the policy at issue to the Trucking Company, and (3) the Trucking Company has a duty to defend and indemnify the Firm Client under the terms of the subcontract between the parties. The Trucking Company’s Insurer’s Motion sought a judgment that the policy did not afford coverage for the subject accident. The trial court denied both motions.
In the Firm Client’s Supervisory Writ Application, it requested the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal review the trial court’s findings with respect to (1) the Trucking Company’s duty to defend and indemnify the Firm Client under the terms of the subcontract between the parties, and (2) whether the Trucking Company’s Insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the Firm Client as an additional named insured on the Trucking Company’s auto policy.
On the Firm Client’s first issue, the Fourth Circuit found the Motion was premature, for want of service on the Sub-Trucking Company. And as such, the trial court did not err in denying summary judgment on this issue.
On the Firm Client’s second issue for review, the Fourth Circuit found the Trucking Company’s Insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify the Firm Client was enforceable. The Court applying the “eight-corner rule” found that within the four corners of the Trucking Company’s auto policy (1) the Firm Client was listed as an additional named insured, and (2) coverage under the policy was not unambiguously excluded. Moreover, reviewing the four corners of the Plaintiff’s petition, the Plaintiff asserted claims against the Firm Client for the alleged acts and omissions of the Trucking Company. Thus, the Fourth Circuit found that coverage was not unambiguously excluded, and the Trucking Company’s Insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the Firm Client.
Riess LeMieux is proud to have successfully litigated these issues on its Supervisory Writ Application and gracious for the opportunity to successfully secure the Firm Client’s right to defense and indemnity, as an additional named insured on its Subcontractor’s auto policy.
