347 So. 2d 1275 (La. Ct. App. 1977)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit

Jul 11, 1977

347 So. 2d 1275 (La. Ct. App. 1977)

Summary

In Frazier the homeowners policy was designed to cover liability for injuries on the Vedros' property, and the court of appeal properly found a cause of action stated against the insurer.

Summary of this case from Picou v. Ferrara

See 11 Summaries

Opinion

No. 11352.

June 13, 1977. Rehearing Denied July 11, 1977.

APPEAL FROM NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE DANIEL W. LeBLANC, J.

Arthur Cobb, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiffs-appellants Margie Shemin Frazier et al.

David W. Robinson, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendants-appellees State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. et al.

Before SARTAIN, COVINGTON and LOTTINGER, JJ.

COVINGTON, Judge.

This case comes on appeal from a judgment sustaining the peremptory exception of no cause of action filed by defendant, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company.

The suit was brought by Margie Shemin Frazier, the mother of a small child who was allegedly injured when run over by the automobile driven by Susan Vedros, the daughter of Albert L. and Beula Vedros. The suit was filed against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the liability insurer of the Vedros automobile, and Republic underwriters Insurance Company, insurer under the Vedros homeowners policy (CPL). The basis for holding Republic Underwriters liable is set out in paragraph 2 of the plaintiff's petition as follows:

"Albert L. and Beula Vedros were at fault in not minding said child and knowing the whereabouts of said child and seeing to it that said child was not in the way of any vehicles driven by anyone on said property since Beula Vedros was temporarily tending said child for plaintiff and they were otherwise at fault."

It is the exceptor's position that "the generating source of the accident" was the alleged negligent operation of an automobile owned by exceptor's insured, Albert L. Vedros; hence, the claim asserted by the plaintiff is for

". . . . bodily injury . . . arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of: (2) any motor vehicle owned or operated by . . . any insured,"

and is excluded from the homeowners policy.

We reverse and remand.

The petition alleges two distinct causes of action, i.e., one for the negligence of Mr. and Mrs. Vedros in not properly attending to the child while baby-sitting, and one for the negligent operation of the motor vehicle by the Vedros's daughter. The first cause of action is obviously concerned with the homeowners policy (Republic), while the second is based upon the automobile insurance policy (State Farm).

Republic could be held liable for the alleged negligence of the Vedroses even though, under the exclusionary clause, it does not afford coverage for the operation of the motor vehicle.

Hurston v. Dufour, 292 So.2d 733 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1974) writ denied, La., 295 So.2d 178, merely stands for the proposition that a homeowners policy is not to be substituted for an automobile liability insurance policy.

Accordingly, the judgment sustaining the exception is reversed at the appellee's cost.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Summaries of

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit

Jul 11, 1977

347 So. 2d 1275 (La. Ct. App. 1977)

In Frazier the homeowners policy was designed to cover liability for injuries on the Vedros' property, and the court of appeal properly found a cause of action stated against the insurer.

Summary of this case from Picou v. Ferrara

In Frazier, the theory of liability was for negligent supervision of a small child who was struck by an automobile, not using one.

Summary of this case from Calderon v. Sanabria

In Frazier, the defendants were babysitting a child who was injured when run over by an automobile driven by their daughter.

Summary of this case from Chreene v. Prince

In Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 347 So.2d 1275 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 351 So.2d 165 (La. 1977), despite an auto exclusion, this court allowed a cause of action for negligent supervision against the defendant's homeowner's insurance company when a child was run over by a car driven by the defendant's daughter while the defendant babysat the child.

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Jabbar

In Frazier, 347 So.2d 1275, the plaintiff sued the defendants, their automobile insurer, and their homeowners' insurer for injuries her daughter suffered when she was struck by a car driven by the defendants' daughter.

Summary of this case from Dingler v. Zurich Comm.

In Frazier, 347 So.2d 1275, the defendant's car was being driven by her daughter when the vehicle struck and injured a small child who had been left in the defendant's care.

Summary of this case from Gedward v. Sonnier

In Frazier, a young child in the care of the defendants, the Vedroses, was left unsupervised in their driveway, and was hit by a car driven by the Vedroses' daughter.

Summary of this case from Martello v. State Farm

In Frazier, supra, the plaintiff's minor child was injured after being run over by a vehicle driven by the defendants' minor daughter.

Summary of this case from Mahlum v. Baker

In Frazier, a child that the defendants were babysitting was injured when the defendants' minor daughter ran over the child with her car.

Summary of this case from Manuel v. Luckett

In Frazier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 347 So.2d 1275 (La.App. 1st Cir.) writ denied, 351 So.2d 165 (La. 1977), this court held that an "ownership, maintenance, use" exclusion similar to that at bar did not apply to negligence independent of the use of the automobile, even where the petition alleged the negligence to have resulted in an injury by an automobile.

Summary of this case from Sarp v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

In Frazier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 347 So.2d 1275 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977), writ denied, 351 So.2d 165 (La. 1977) our brethren of the First Circuit held that, even though the homeowner's policy excluded coverage for the operation of a motor vehicle, the plaintiff's cause of action was the improper supervision by defendant of plaintiff's minor child entrusted to defendant's care.

Summary of this case from Smith v. USAA Casualty Insurance

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Summary

Opinion

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Summary

Opinion

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations