 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hemstad v. Jefferson Parish School Board10/6/2005
xclusion did not apply to him. The effect of the judgment is that the plaintiffs' suits, i.e., those plaintiffs that are employees of JPSB, were dismissed against JPSB's insurer, St. Paul; however, the negligent tort suit by Hemstad, the employee of the sheriff's office, remains viable as against JPSB's insurer, St. Paul.
The basis of the trial judge's ruling was that, "coverage for the Board's alleged negligent acts was excluded for employees under the 'Employer's Liability Exclusion'" and "to the extent that Plaintiffs alleged an intentional tort, coverage was excluded under the policy's 'Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion.'" Further, the trial judge found that " fter reviewing the relevant affidavit, pleadings, and applicable law" the motions for a new trial had merit as to the claim that "plaintiff, Terry Hemstad, was not an employee of the Board."
Plaintiffs' sole assignment of error is that the trial judge erred when he found that the policy's Employers Liability Exclusion and the Expected or Intended Injury Exclusion barred coverage.
Plaintiffs' argument, as we understand it, is that the term "protected person" in the policy is ambiguous and that therefore the policy should be construed in favor of coverage in this case. We disagree.
The policy provides:
What This Agreement Covers
Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability
We'll pay amounts any protected person is legally required to pay as damages for covered bodily injury or property damage that:
* happens while this agreement is in effect; and
* is caused by an event.
A "protected person" is defined in the policy as:
Protected personmeans any person or organization who qualifies as a protected person under the Who Is Protected Under This Agreement section.
The policy further provides:
Who is Protected Under This Agreement
Corporation or other organization. If you are shown in the Introduction as a named insured and a corporation or an other organization, you are a protected person.
An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed employing the general rules of interpretation set forth in the Louisiana Civil Code. Vintage Contracting, L.L.C. v. Dixie Bldg. Material Co., Inc., 03-422 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), 858 So.2d 22. However, an insurance policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or strained manner under the guise of contractual interpretation to enlarge or to restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by unambiguous terms. Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 02-1237 (La. 6/27/03), 848 So.2d 577. The rules of construction do not authorize the exercise of inventive powers to create an ambiguity where none exists. Id. When the words of an insurance contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, courts must enforce the contract as written. Clulee v. Bayou Fleet, Inc., 04-106 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/26/04), 875 So.2d 878. It is well-settled that unless a statute or public policy dictates otherwise, insurers have the right to limit liability and enforce conditions or limitations upon their insureds. Vintage, supra.
We conclude that the words of the policy clearly and explicitly provide that the insured, JPSB, is a "protected person" and that said provisions lead to no absurd consequences in this case.
Plaintiffs also claim that the Employers Liability Exclusion does not bar coverage because their claims are against the "administrators" of the school board as well as the employer, the school board. In support of this contention, plaintiffs rely on
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.
|
|