 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Paxton v. Sanderson12/10/1999
Judgment rendered December 10, 1999. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
Honorable R. W. Kostelka, Judge
GASKINS, J., dissents with reasons
CARAWAY, J., dissents with reasons.
Is the motor vehicle exclusion in defendant's homeowner's insurance policy, when read in conjunction with the definition of the term "motor vehicle," ambiguous?
On October 26, 1996, 14-year-old Connie Paxton sustained personal injuries when she lost control of the three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") she was riding. On that date, Connie had gone with her boyfriend, Scott Sams, to ride ATVs on rural property owned by Scott's cousins, Carla and Paul Martin. The ATV ridden by Connie was provided by Scott's mother and stepfather, Wanda and Lloyd Sanderson.
Patricia Paxton, Connie's mother, filed the instant personal injury action, individually and on behalf of Connie, seeking damages. Named as defendants were Wanda and Lloyd Sanderson and their homeowner's insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that there was no coverage under the terms of the homeowner's policy issued to the Sandersons based upon a motor vehicle exclusion. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' demands against State Farm. Both plaintiffs and the Sandersons have appealed.
Discussion
According to plaintiffs, the trial court's grant of summary judgment is improper because the language in the provision relied upon to exclude liability coverage is ambiguous. The applicable provision states:
Coverage L (Personal Liability) and Coverage M (Medical Payments to Others) do not apply to: . . .
(e) Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of: . . .
(2) a motor vehicle owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured.
The policy defines "motor vehicle" as: . . .
(c) a motorized golf cart, snowmobile or other motorized land vehicle owned by an insured and designed for recreational use off public roads, while off an insured location. A motorized golf cart while used for golfing purposes is not a motor vehicle; . . .
In support, plaintiffs cite Gedward v. Sonnier, 97-1068 (La. App. 3d Cir. 05/29/98), 713 So.2d 770, in which the Third Circuit found identical policy language to be ambiguous.
Since the instant appeal was lodged, the Third Circuit's decision in Gedward was affirmed in part and reversed in part (on other grounds) by the Louisiana Supreme Court, Gedward v. Sonnier, 98-1688 (La. 03/02/99), 728 So.2d 1265. In that case, the supreme court found that the motor vehicle exclusion in the "homeowner's" policy, when read in conjunction with the policy's definition of the term "motor vehicle," was ambiguous.
Justice Kimball, writing for the majority, first discussed the applicable principles of contractual interpretation:
Each provision in an insurance policy must be interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the contract as a whole. See La. C.C. art. 2050. An insurance contract must be construed as a whole, and one portion cannot be construed separately at the expense of disregarding another. Crabtree v. State Farm Ins. Co., 93-0509 (La. 02/28/94), 632 So.2d 736; Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co., 536 So.2d 417 (La. 1988). If there exists an ambiguity in a policy, that ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer. Pareti, 536 So.2d at 420. That is,
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|