Argonaut Ins v. Atlantic Specialty Ins ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30325 Document: 00516633219 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 2, 2023
No. 22-30325 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Argonaut Insurance Company,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:21-CV-1602
Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Argonaut Insurance Company (“Argonaut”) appeals the summary
judgment dismissing its claims for contribution and defense costs against
Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (“ASIC”). Concluding the district
court correctly interpreted ASIC’s policy as not covering the vehicular
accident at issue, we affirm.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30325 Document: 00516633219 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2023
No. 22-30325
I.
The parties stipulated to the following facts. Darrell Esnault, a
commercial truck driver, operates a truck that Triple G Express, Inc.
(“Triple G”) leased from Double S Transportation, LLC (“Double S”). The
truck is ordinarily garaged at Esnault’s residence. After making his final
delivery at a New Orleans railroad terminal on the afternoon of February 22,
2019, Esnault began driving the truck to a nearby store to buy groceries. 1
Seeing a friend on the way, Esnault stopped, exited the vehicle, chatted for
about five minutes, and continued on. Before he got to the store, however, he
realized he did not have enough money, so he turned back home. When he
was about four blocks away from home, however, Esnault decided to buy
cigarettes at a nearby gas station. Making a U-turn, Esnault collided with
another car driven by Christian Davis. The accident occurred about 22
minutes after Esnault left the railroad terminal.
Argonaut and ASIC each separately insure Triple G for the truck
Esnault was driving. Argonaut’s policy is a general commercial auto policy,
while ASIC’s policy is a narrower Non-Trucking Liability Coverage
(“NTL”) policy. NTL policies typically provide liability coverage only when
a commercial truck is used for non-business purposes. See Progressive
Paloverde Ins. Co. v. Estate of Jenkins, No. 19-12840, 2021 WL 638119, at *3
(E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2021) (discussing NTL policies). ASIC’s NTL policy
states it provides coverage only for “[l]osses that occur . . . when a Covered
Truck is Non-Trucking.” The term “Non-Trucking” is defined in relevant
part to mean when the truck is “operating solely for personal use unrelated
to the business of the Motor Carrier.” The policy further explains when a
truck is “not Non-Trucking,” including when the truck is “returning to the
1
When Esnault left the terminal, the truck was “bobtail”—meaning the trailer was
no longer attached.
2
Case: 22-30325 Document: 00516633219 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2023
No. 22-30325
Truck’s Primary Garage Location subsequent to delivering a load.” As
noted, the truck’s primary garage location was Esnault’s residence.
Davis filed a state court lawsuit against Esnault, Double S, State Farm,
Triple G, and Triple G’s two insurers—Argonaut and ASIC—for his
injuries. ASIC declined to defend Triple G and Esnault, 2 believing its NTL
policy did not cover the accident. Argonaut proceeded alone and settled
Davis’s suit on behalf of Esnault, Triple G, and Double S. Pursuant to an
assignment of Davis’s rights, Argonaut then brought the present suit in
federal district court against ASIC, claiming that ASIC’s NTL policy applied
and that ASIC should have provided a defense.
ASIC moved for summary judgment, arguing its NTL policy was
inapplicable because at the time of the accident Esnault was not driving the
truck “solely” for personal use. The district court agreed. The court thus
held that ASIC’s NTL policy unambiguously precluded coverage. But even
if the policy were ambiguous, the court found Argonaut’s interpretation of
the policy unreasonable because it would make a driver “non-trucking” for
any kind of a stop or detour before the route had concluded.
Accordingly, the court granted ASIC summary judgment and
dismissed Argonaut’s claims with prejudice. Argonaut timely appealed the
summary judgment, which we review de novo. XL Ins. Am., Inc. v. Turn Servs.,
L.L.C., 37 F.4th 204, 206 (5th Cir. 2022); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
II.
Argonaut argues the district court erred because, at the time of the
accident, Esnault had finished his delivery and was using the truck for the
2
Esnault is included as a “Named Insured” under Triple G’s policy.
3
Case: 22-30325 Document: 00516633219 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/02/2023
No. 22-30325
“solely personal activities” of buying groceries and cigarettes. 3 Argonaut
thus asserts Esnault was “non-trucking” within the meaning of ASIC’s NTL
policy when he struck Davis’s car. We disagree.
The district court correctly interpreted the NTL policy and applied it
to the stipulated facts. 4 The policy defines “non-trucking” as being operated
“solely for personal use unrelated to the business of the Motor Carrier.” As
the district court intuited, the policy thereby “contemplates that a truck may
simultaneously be put to both business and personal use.” That is what
happened here. According to the stipulated facts, when Esnault collided with
Davis, he was engaged in both personal and business pursuits: he was buying
groceries and cigarettes (personal) while returning the truck to its primary
garage location (business). So, Esnault was not using the truck solely for
personal use. Moreover, the policy specifies that a driver is “not Non-
Trucking” when, inter alia, the truck is “returning to [its] Primary Garage
Location subsequent to delivering a load.” Again, that is what happened
here. It is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, Esnault had not yet
returned the truck to his home, its primary garage. This supports the district
court’s conclusion that Esnault was “not non-trucking” when he collided
with Davis.
On this last point, Argonaut claims there is a fact issue concerning
whether Esnault “intended to garage his vehicle when he arrived home” or
3
Argonaut does not renew on appeal its arguments in the district court based on
the policy’s alleged ambiguity, nor its arguments premised on the policy’s definition of
“Route Deviation.” Argonaut has therefore abandoned those arguments and we need not
consider them.
4
All agree that Louisiana law applies and that under Louisiana law courts read
insurance policies under the normal rules of contract interpretation. See Q Clothier New
Orleans, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 29 F.4th 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Supreme
Servs. & Spec. Co. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 2006-1827 (La. 5/22/07); 958 So. 2d 634, 638).
4
Case: 22-30325 Document: 00516633219 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/02/2023
No. 22-30325
instead continue with his personal errands. But Argonaut never raised this
argument in the district court and cannot do so for the first time on appeal.
See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021). In any event,
the parties stipulated for summary judgment purposes that “[i]f the accident
had not occurred, Esnault would have returned to his residence . . . where he
garaged the tractor.” Argonaut cannot take back that stipulation now.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly granted
ASIC summary judgment. 5
AFFIRMED.
5
Because we resolve the appeal on this basis, we need not reach Argonaut’s
arguments concerning whether it properly sought contribution from ASIC under Louisiana
law.
5