Andrus v. Police Jury of Lafayette Parish, 4024

• Decision Date: 13 December 1972
• Docket Number: No. 4024,4024
• Parties: Ignatius ANDRUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POLICE JURY OF PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, Defendant, Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant-Appellee, Highlands Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 280

270 So.2d 280

Ignatius ANDRUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POLICE JURY OF PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, Defendant, Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant-Appellee, Highlands Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4024.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1972.

Koury, Hill & Moss by John K. Hill, Jr., Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe by Richard C. Meaux, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

Mouton & Mouton by Welton P. Mouton, Sr., Bertrand deBlanc, Dist. Atty., Lafayette, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGE , HOOD and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

The trial court sustained defendant Maryland Casualty Company's motion for summary judgment based on its policy exclusion. Plaintiff Ignatius Andrus and defendant Highlands Insurance Company appeal contending that the policy exclusion does not apply. We affirm.

Maryland Casualty Company's motion to dismiss the appeals was overruled. Andrus v. Police Jury of Parish of Lafayette, 266 So.2d 535 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1972).

Plaintiff alleged that his wife and three children were killed in an automobile accident caused by Lafayette Police Jury's negligence in failing to provide signs and safety devices in an area where a parish road ran dangerously close to the Vermilion river.

Maryland Casualty's relevant policy exclusion provides:

'It is agreed that the insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of

(a) the ownership, maintenance or use of the premises designated in this endorsement or of any property located thereon;

(b) operations on such premises or elsewhere which are necessary or incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of such premises; or

(c) goods or products manufactured at or distributed from such premises.

'DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF PREMISES:

Any highway, street, sidewalk, road, bridge, or other public way.'

Appellants' contention that the exclusion is inapplicable is divided into three categories. First, the exclusion is too ambiguous to include the alleged negligence. Second, the exclusion does not exclude coverage of the alleged negligence. Third, the case of Snell v. Stein, 261 La. 358, 259 So.2d 876 (1972) effects a change in the jurisprudential rule for policy language construction, and requires a reversal of the trial court judgment.

We reject all three arguments.

The policy exclusions were stated clearly and contained no ambiguity. This court construed a similar exclusion in Foreman v. Maryland Casualty Company, 224 So.2d 553 (La .App. 3 Cir. 1969), a case involving similar facts. We held then as we do now that the exclusion applied. Clear and unambiguous policy provisions are to be enforced as written. LSA-C.C. Art. 1945; Albritton v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 224 La. 522, 70 So.2d 111 (1953); Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Russell, 243 La. 189, 142 So.2d 391 (1962); Martin v. Starke, 208 So.2d 723 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968).

Appellant's second argument is that the exclusion unambiguously reflects the intent of the parties to cover the alleged acts of negligence. It is inferred from the definitions of each term and the syntax of the terms used, that the parties intended to limit the exclusion to liability for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, and use of the premises Only insofar as the roads were to be used by the police jury; that use of the premises by others is not excluded.

Appellants distort the intent of the parties by adverting to hypertechnicalities in definitions and syntax. Their means of construing the policy language conflicts with the guidelines for construction established in the jurisprudence that words in an insurance policy are to be understood according to their common and usual signification, without reference so much to grammatical rules as to general and popular usage. Taylor v. State farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 248 La. 246, 178 So.2d 238 (1965); Conner v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 216 So.2d 555 (La.App. 3 Cir . 1968). Rather than to search for hidden subtleties and conjectures, our goal in interpreting policy wording is the ascertainment of the apparent object and plain intent of the parties . Hemel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 211 La. 95, 29 So.2d 483 (1947). The apparent object, the plain intent discernible from the words in the contested policy, given their common and usual usage, is the construction advanced by appellee.

In construing insurance policies, considerations should be given to the fact that the insurer has the right to limit its contracted liability. When this limitation is expressed unambiguously in its coverage exclusions, courts will enforce the provisions as written. West v. City of Ville Platte, 237 So.2d 730 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1970). It is inappropriate, moreover, for a court construing an insurance policy provision to attach a strained construction to the words used . Thibodeaux v. Parks Equipment Company, 185 So.2d...