Dietrich v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. CA880948,CA880948 |
| Parties | Nita M. DIETRICH v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Roy & Kiesel, attorneys at Law. 551 So.2d 64 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Richard L. McGimsey, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee, Nita M. Dietrich.
A. Clay Pierce, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Travelers Ins. Co.
Boris F. Navratil, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants, Commercial Ins. Co., Kansas City Fire & Marine Ins. Co., and Continental Cas. Co.
Larry M. Rodel, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees, Roy and Kiesel, attys. at law.
Daniel R. Atkinson, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees, Marilyn Clark and Allstate Ins. Co.
Frank A. Fertitta, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Vinyl Corp.
W. Shelby McKenzie, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Gilsbar, Inc.
Kenneth E. Barnette, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Common Point Restaurant.
Marc W. Judice, Lafayette, for defendants-appellees, Charles Abbound and Nat. Union Ins. Co.
Arthur H. Andrew, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Cabana Pool Corp.
Taylor Caffery, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, Dept. of Health & Human Resources.
Alston H. Johnson, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee, New England Reinsurance Corp.
Before COVINGTON, C.J., and LOTTINGER and CRAIN, JJ.
This appeal arises from a summary judgment granted on the issue of whether a multi-perils insurance policy covered a law firm's failure to enroll one of its employees under group health and disability policies which it had with another insurance company. From a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants/third-party plaintiffs (Travelers Insurance Company and Roy & Kiesel), third-party defendants (Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, Kansas City Fire and Marine Insurance Company, and the Continental Insurance Company) appeal.
Plaintiff, Nita M. Dietrich, began working for Roy & Kiesel, attorneys at law, as a legal secretary on May 8, 1984. As an employee of Roy & Kiesel, Ms. Dietrich was to be enrolled in a group health and disability policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company. Ms. Dietrich asserts that this was part of her compensation, whereas Roy & Kiesel assert that the coverage was an optional fringe benefit available to Ms. Dietrich provided that she fill out the necessary enrollment forms. Following an accident on July 12, 1984, it was learned that Ms. Dietrich's name did not appear on the policy. Thereafter, Ms. Dietrich filed numerous suits against a number of defendants, including Roy & Kiesel, alleging the law firm was negligent and had breached its contract in not enrolling her in its health and disability plan. In a fourth amending petition, she also alleged detrimental reliance and that the health and disability plan fell under the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and thus Travelers and Roy & Kiesel had breached their fiduciary duty in failing to assure that she was enrolled in the plan. Roy & Kiesel impleaded Kansas City Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Kansas City), Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey (Commercial), and Continental Insurance Company (Continental), claiming the insurance policies issued to the firm by these insurers protected the firm against Ms. Dietrich's claims. Both the law firm and the insurers filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of coverage.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Roy & Kiesel, requiring the third-party defendant insurance companies to provide coverage and to defend the law firm against the suit by Ms. Dietrich.
Third-party defendants appeal, urging the trial court erred in finding that the comprehensive general liability policies issued by the third-party defendants provided coverage to the Roy & Kiesel law firm, for liability arising from its failure to enroll an employee under the firm's health and disability plan.
The primary issue in the case before this court is whether the failure of Roy & Kiesel to enroll Ms. Dietrich in their health and disability plan should be considered a breach of contract or an act of negligence. If it is considered a breach of contract, Roy & Kiesel would not be entitled to coverage because of an exclusion in the general liability policy issued by third-party defendants.
The pertinent policy here is the Kansas City policy. The one issued by Commercial had expired prior to the accident. The policy by Kansas City is a $500,000.00 primary policy and the Continental policy is a $1,000,000.00 umbrella policy, the language of which tracks that of the Kansas City policy.
The Kansas City policy provides:
Occurrence is defined in the policy as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
Property damage is defined as:
"(2) loss of use of tangible property which has not been physically injured or destroyed provided such loss of use is caused by an occurrence during the policy period."
Third-party defendants contend that Ms. Dietrich's loss of promised health and disability benefits is a loss of an intangible right, and, thus not within the policy's definition of "property damage." We disagree. "Tangible property" has been equated with "corporeal property" by the Louisiana Supreme Court. City of New Orleans v. Baumer Foods, Inc., 532 So.2d 1381 (La.1988). Although the right to the benefits payable under the health and disability policy may be an intangible right, the actual benefits which would have been payable under the policy had Ms. Dietrich been properly enrolled in and covered by the policy constitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rain Cii Carbon, LLC v. Turner Indus. Grp., LLC
...property" with "corporeal property," which "includes money." In support, Rain included a citation to Dietrich v. Travelers Insurance Co. , 551 So.2d 64, 66 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1989), writ denied , 559 So.2d 121 (La.1990), a case discussed by Rain in the matter now under consideration and presen......
-
Kent & Smith Holdings, L.L.C. v. HDI Global Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION 16-333-SDD-RLB
...2010-217 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11), 61 So.3d 740, writ denied , 2011-0845 (La. 6/17/11), 63 So.3d 1036.60 Id. at 747.61 551 So.2d 64 (La. Ct. App. 1989), writ denied , 559 So.2d 121 (La. 1990).62 Id. at 66.63 Rec. Doc. 20-4, p. 17, "Contingency Period," and p. 18, "Act of Sale & Closing."64 ......
-
Lamar Advertising Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.
...case does nothing to get Lamar over the initial hurdle of our conclusion that people are not property. Lamar's stronger arguments rely on Dietrich and Williamson, as these cases distinguish between tangible and intangible property. The Louisiana Supreme Court has equated the term "tangible ......
-
Leon Lowe & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
...& Indemnity Company, 386 So.2d at 89; American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 230 So.2d at 259; Dietrich v. Travelers Insurance Company, 551 So.2d 64, 67 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 121 (La.1990); Mattingly v. State, Department of Health and Human Resources, 509 So......