DocketNumber: No. 2016-C-1989
Citation Numbers: 210 So. 3d 794
Judges: Deny, Johnson, Writ
Filed Date: 2/3/2017
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 8/23/2021
11Writ granted. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the lower courts’ rulings and hereby grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Allied World Insurance Company. An insurance policy is a conventional obligation that constitutes the law between the insured and the insurer. Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712 (La. 3/2/99), 729 So.2d 1024; La. C.C. art. 1983. The intent of the parties is to be determined in accordance with the words and phrases used in a policy, and these words and phrases are to be construed using their plain, ordinary, and generally prevailing meaning, unless the words have acquired a technical meaning. Id.; La. C.C. art 2047. The court of appeal in this case committed legal error in finding that ambiguity exists as to the language used in the insurance policy.
The plaintiff, according to his own petition, was employed as a deputy sheriff and was an employee of the Evangeline Parish Sheriffs Department when he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. According to his petition, the plaintiff was injured while supervising trustee inmates at the Sheriffs Department’s automobile repair shop. The plaintiff leaned back while sitting in a chair, which gave way, causing him to fall onto the concrete floor,
The Police Professional Liability Policy in this case obligated the Insurer to pay on behalf of the Insured “Loss which the Insured is legally obligated to pay as a result of a Claim...for a Law Enforcement Wrongful Act....” A Law Enforcement Wrongful Act is defined in the policy as “an actual or alleged act, error or omission, neglect or breach of duty by an Insured: (1) which arises out of and is committed during the course and scope of Law Enforcement Activities, or (2) which arises out of the ownership, maintenance and use of Premises by the Insured for the purpose of conducting Law Enforcement Activities; and which results in Personal Injury, Bodily Injury or Property Damage.” Law Enforcement Activities is defined in the policy as “law enforcement-related duties conducted by any Insured for or on behalf of the Named Insured....” The plaintiff rests his claim |son the “neglect or breach of duty by an Insured” arising out of Law Enforcement Activity or the use of Premises by the Insured for such Activity.
However, the alleged accident did not arise out of the use of a scheduled Premise as identified in the policy itself. The language therein is clear that Premises is defined as “the location in ITEM 1. of the Declarations,” “any jail, holding cell or lock-up facility, owned or leased by, and operated by, the Named Insured at the location designated in ITEM 1. of the Declarations,” and “any other location specifically scheduled in an Endorsement to this Policy.” ITEM 1. on the Declarations page provides the address of 200 Court Street, Suite 100, Ville Platte, Louisiana. Endorsement PGU 1043 to the policy lists 415 West Cotton, Ville Platte, Louisiana, as additional covered Premises. The facts are not in dispute that the subject accident, which occurred at an automobile repair shop located at 412 South Soileau Street, Ville Platte, Louisiana, did not occur at either of the scheduled locations identified in the policy.
Additionally, the policy specifically excluded “Personal Injury or Bodily Injury to an employee of the Insured arising out of and in the course and scope of employment by the Insured.... ” Personal Injury and Bodily Injury were elsewhere restricted to injuries “alleged against an Insured by an entity or person who is not an Insured.... ” The plaintiff admitted in his petition that he was employed as a deputy sheriff, was an employee of the Sheriffs Department, and was injured while in the course and scope of his employment at the Sheriffs Department automobile repair shop. Applying the ordinary and prevailing meaning of employee,
In sum, the subject policy did not provide coverage for injuries sustained by an Insured or an employee of the Named Insured while in the course and scope of his employment, nor did it provide coverage for injuries that did not arise out of Law Enforcement Activities or out of the use of Premises listed on the Declarations page or in any endorsement of the policy. Therefore, under the clear and unambiguous language of the policy, the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the course and scope of his employment at a location not listed in the policy would not be covered by the policy. The rulings of the lower courts denying Allied World’s motion for summary judgment on coverage are reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with these views.
REVERSED AND REMANDED