Haygood v. Dies
| Decision Date | 12 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | 49,972–CA. |
| Citation | 174 So.3d 1211 |
| Parties | Ryan HAYGOOD, DDS and Haygood Dental Care, LLC, Plaintiffs v. Ross H. DIES, Ross H. Dies, DDS, J. Cody Cowen, DDS, and Benjamin A. Beach, DDS, A Professional Dental Limited Liability Company, Camp Morrison, C. Barry Ogden, Karen Moorhead and Dana Glorioso, Defendants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bolen, Parker, Brenner, Lee, & Engelsman Ltd. by Madeline J. Lee, R. Preston Mansour, Jr., Alexandria, LA, for Defendant /Appellant, Dr. Herman O. Blackwood, D.D.S.
Inabnet & Jones, L.L.C. by Scott G. Jones, Lawrence J. Boasso, Kevin P. Riche, for Plaintiff–In–Intervention–Appellee, Encompass Insurance Company of America.
Before BROWN, CARAWAY and DREW, JJ.
The appellant, who is a dentist and a member of the state regulatory board for dentistry, was sued with others for actions taken by the board concerning the plaintiff and his dentist practice. The allegations of the claim were that the appellant acted in concert with others in a conspiracy to slander or defame the character of the plaintiff. Following appellant's claim for insurance coverage from his homeowner's insurance, the insurer intervened in the action seeking a declaratory judgment that no coverage or duty to defend was owed under the policy. The trial court rendered judgment on a motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer which is now appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm.
This lawsuit is based on the investigation and disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Ryan Haygood, where Dr. Haygood's dental license was initially revoked by the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (“Dental Board”).
The Dental Board began investigating Dr. Haygood and ultimately filed charges against him after receiving formal complaints from patients and other dentists that Dr. Haygood was recommending treatment plans after over-diagnosing or unnecessarily diagnosing patients with periodontal disease. On November 8, 2010, the Dental Board found that Dr. Haygood had violated the Dental Practice Act and revoked his dental license and levied fines against him.
Dr. Haygood appealed the Dental Board's decision to the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish, which affirmed the Board's ruling. Then Dr. Haygood appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which vacated and remanded the case. The court found that the Dental Board's independent counsel participated in the administrative hearing in dual roles as prosecutor and adjudicator in violation of Dr. Haygood's due process rights.
After the appeal court's ruling, Dr. Haygood and his limited liability company filed this suit for damages in 2011, naming the Dental Board and others as defendants.
On June 28, 2013, Dr. Haygood supplemented his petition to add Dr. Herman O. Blackwood, III (“Dr.Blackwood”), as a defendant. Dr. Haygood claims that Dr. Blackwood, with others, caused him damage through actions that were initiated by the Dental Board, resulting in the disciplinary hearing.
After learning of the lawsuit, Dr. Blackwood gave notice of the lawsuit to Encompass Insurance Company of America (“Encompass”), his homeowner's insurance provider, seeking defense and indemnity. In September of 2013, Encompass provided Dr. Blackwood with written analysis of the claims in the lawsuit and the reasons for its declination of coverage under the Encompass policy. Encompass then, on April 3, 2014, filed an intervention for declaratory judgment in the Haygood lawsuit.
Encompass moved for summary judgment on the coverage issue. Dr. Blackwood filed his own motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of whether coverage was excluded under the policy and his entitlement to a reimbursement of defense costs and a continuing defense from Encompass. Encompass then filed an opposition brief alleging that it owed no duty to defend Dr. Blackwood.
After a hearing on the motions, the trial court issued a judgment granting Encompass' motion and denying Dr. Blackwood's motion, finding that the homeowner's policy did not provide coverage for the claims asserted against Dr. Blackwood and that Encompass had no duty to defend and indemnify Dr. Blackwood. Dr. Blackwood appeals.
An insurance policy should be interpreted by using ordinary contract principles. Henly v. Phillips Abita Lumber Co., 06–1856 (La.App. 1st Cir.10/3/07), 971 So.2d 1104. Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties. La. C.C. art. 2045. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent. La. C.C. art. 2046. The words of a contract must be given their generally prevailing meaning. La. C.C. art 2047. Each provision in an insurance policy must be interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the contract as a whole. La. C.C. art. 2050 ; La. R.S. 22:881.
To determine if the an insurer owes the insured a duty to defend, the court is confined to the “eight corners” of the allegation and the insurance policy. As stated by the court in Vaughn v. Franklin, 00–0291 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/28/01), 785 So.2d 79, 88 :
Accordingly, an insurer's duty to defend is broader than its liability for damages. Yount v. Maisano, 627 So.2d 148 (La.1993). An insurer has a duty to defend if there exists a “single allegation in the plaintiff's petition under which coverage is not unambiguously excluded.” Vaughn, supra.
Following the so-called “eight corners” analysis, the parties' opposing motions for summary judgment rest on the petition's factual allegations against Dr. Blackwood and the contractual provisions for coverage under the Encompass policy.
In Dr. Haygood's initial petition, the following charge is made against the executive director of the Dental Board and other dentists/defendants:
This charge was directed toward Dr. Blackwood upon his inclusion as a defendant.
The allegations from the third amended petition that named Dr. Blackwood as a defendant in the suit are listed below:
18
Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Blackwood, Dr. Hill, and the other named co-conspirators rendered material assistance to the conspiracy to harm Dr. Haygood, and continue to do so as of the date of this filing. Plaintiffs further allege that the co-conspirators have aided and encouraged actions of the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry since the initial filing of the action as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. Gates
...damage caused by the offense. Article 2324 "does not by itself impose liability for a civil conspiracy." Haygood v. Dies , 49,972 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/12/15), 174 So. 3d 1211, 1218. To prove a conspiracy under Louisiana state law, a plaintiff must prove that: 1) an agreement existed with one ......
-
Payne v. Stanley
...are bound, in solido. Id . La. C.C. art. 2324 does not, by itself, impose liability for a civil conspiracy. Haygood v. Dies , 49,972 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/12/15), 174 So. 3d 1211 ; Butz v. Lynch, 97-2166 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/8/98), 710 So. 2d 1171. The actionable element in a claim under this ar......
-
Thames v. Thames
...C.C. art. 2324(A). Louisiana Civil Code Article 2324 does not by itself impose liability for a civil conspiracy. Haygood v. Dies, 49,972 (La.App.2d Cir.8/12/15), 174 So.3d 1211, citing Butz v. Lynch, 97–2166 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/8/98), 710 So.2d 1171. The actionable element in a claim under t......
- Waters v. Perry
-
Chapter 8
...State Courts: Illinois: Landmark American Insurance Co. v. NIP Group, Inc., 962 N.E.2d 562 (Ill. App. 2011). Louisiana: Haygood v. Dies, 174 So.3d 1211 (La. App. 2015). New York: Allied World National Assurance Co. v. Great Divide Insurance Co., 32 N.Y.S.3d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). North C......