 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. City Baton Rouge4/30/1998
ter 4, Secs. 150-152 of the Baton Rouge Code of Ordinances, entitled "Trespass."
The trial court expressly determined that the City/Parish did not willfully commit a crime, and we find the record establishes a reasonable factual basis to support that Conclusion. Although Mayor Screen and Director Addison lacked the requisite court order to undertake the excavation project, and thus, were without authority to go onto the plaintiffs' property, the trial court's finding that both of these officials believed that they were acting under color of the City/Parish's power of eminent domain is supported by the evidence, and therefore, is not clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Because the trial court's Conclusion that the City Parish did not willfully commit a crime is supported by the evidence, the express exclusionary language in the Personal Injury Liability section of the F & C policy does not preclude coverage under the facts of this case.
We note that the F & C policy definition of "damages," expressly set forth in the Personal Injury Liability section, does not identify particular types of "damages which are payable because of personal injury ." Thus, Chicago 's suggestion that the F & C policy does not provide coverage for the property damages awarded to plaintiffs is without foundation. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's Conclusion that the F & C policy provides coverage for all items of damages (in excess of the City/Parish's $100,000.00 self-insurance retention) which plaintiffs sustained due to the City Parish's actions.
B. Chicago 's policy
Chicago maintains that even if there is no requirement of an "occurrence" in F & C's underlying policy, the City/Parish must still establish an "occurrence" in accordance with Endorsement Numbers 4 and 12 of the Chicago policy. Endorsement 4 is entitled "Municipalities Amendatory Endorsement", and provides in pertinent part:
B. It is . . . agreed that this policy shall not apply to any liability for:
(3) Personal injury arising out of a) false arrest, false imprisonment, wrongful eviction, wrongful entry, wrongful detention or malicious prosecution; or b) . . . invasion of the rights of privacy;
Unless such liability is covered by valid and collectible underlying insurance as desc[ribed] in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance, and then only for such hazards for which cove[rage] is afforded under said underlying insurance.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
Endorsement 12, entitled "Personal Injury Following Form", states in relevant part:
It is agreed that, except insofar as coverage is provided to the Insured in the underlying insurance, as set forth in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance, this policy does not apply to liability arising out of the following offenses:
(3) Wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of privated (sic) occupancy.
(4) Discrimination, humiliation and mental anguish.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
Chicago concedes that under the language of these endorsements, if F & C's underlying policy provides coverage, its policy also provides coverage; however, the excess insurer maintains the threshold requirement that the damages arise out of an "occurrence" must nevertheless be proven.
The Chicago policy states the following regarding its scope of coverage:
The company agrees to indemnify the insured for all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay as damages, direct or consequential, and expenses, all as hereinafter defined as included within the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|