Opinion
NO. 2017 CW 1510
04-09-2018
KIM G. HUFFT WIFE OF AND ALDEN M. HUFFT v. BRENDA FRENCH WIFE OF AND HARRY FRENCH, LIGHTHOUSE PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, JANE DOE WIFE OF AND JOHN DOE AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY
In Re: Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2015-11781. BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW AND CRAIN, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. Under our de novo review, we find that there are no material facts genuinely in dispute and that applicants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(3). Applicants established that under the policy of insurance at issue, coverage was only provided for the named insureds Harry and Brenda French; Scott and Mary Angela French (the tenants) did not qualify as additional insureds and were not afforded coverage. See Kemp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 442 So.2d 642, 643 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983), writ denied, 444 So.2d 1224 (La. 1984); Palermo v. Audubon Ins. Co., 96-887 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2/5/97), 689 So.2d 589, writ denied, 97-0368 (La. 3/21/97), 691 So.2d 93. Since the language of the policy is clear that the tenants are not insureds under the policy of insurance issued by Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation, Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation had no duty to defend Mary Angela and Scott French. See American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 255 La. 251, 269, 230 So.2d 253, 259 (La. 1969). Accordingly, the judgment signed by the trial court on September 20, 2017 denying Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment is reversed, and all claims asserted by plaintiffs Kim G. Hufft Wife of/and Alden M. Hufft and co-defendants Mary Angela French wife of/and Scott French against Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation are dismissed with prejudice. Further, the trial court's overruling of the Exception of No Right of Action filed by Lighthouse Property Insurance Corporation against Mary Angela French wife of/and Scott French is reversed and the Exception of No Right of Action is sustained.
JMG
JTP
Crain, J., concurs. The summary judgment evidence establishes that to be an "insured" under the Lighthouse policy, Scott and Mary Angela French would have to be "residents of [Harry and Brenda French's] household." "Household" is not defined in the Lighthouse policy, but has been defined jurisprudentially as "a collective body of persons living together within one curtilage, subsisting in common and directing their attention to a common object, the promotion of their mutual interests and social happiness." Leteff v. Md. Cas. Co., 91 So.2d 123, 130 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1956). It is undisputed that Harry and Brenda French did not reside in the same "household" as Scott and Mary Angela French. There is also no summary judgment evidence suggesting Lighthouse or its agent consented to providing coverage to anyone other than its "insureds". Consequently, the Lighthouse policy does not provide coverage to Scott and Mary Angela French. See Palermo v. Audubon Ins. Co., 96-887 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/5/97), 689 So.2d 589, writ denied, 97-0368 (La. 3/21/97), 691 So.2d 93. See also, Luke v. Theriot, 195 So.2d 685, 691 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1967). Because no coverage is provided under the policy and Lighthouse is, therefore, dismissed, we need not address any other issues. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT