Morris v. Coker
| Decision Date | 11 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 09–1052. |
| Citation | 923 F.Supp.2d 863 |
| Parties | Theresa MORRIS, et al. v. John COKER, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles A. Mouton, Mahtook & Lafleur, Lafayette, LA, Patrick H. Hufft, Hufft & Hufft, New Orleans, LA, for Theresa Morris, et al.
John Kevin Stockstill, Doucet–Speer, Lafayette, LA, Tucker Fred Giles, Watson Blanche et al, Baton Rouge, LA, Robert I. Siegel, Tara Elizabeth Clement, Gieger Laborde & Laperouse, New Orleans, LA, for John Coker, et al.
Cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of insurance coverage are pending before the Court. [Record Documents 131 and 149]. This case arises out of an incident in which Plaintiff Bob Morris was struck by Jon Coker, an employee of Allis Chalmers. Defendant Illinois National Insurance Company (“Illinois National”) issued an excess commercial general liability policy to Allis Chalmers Energy, Inc. (“Allis Chalmers”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Record Document 131] and DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Record Document 149].
The event giving rise to this suit took place in the parking lot of the Riverside Inn, a restaurant in Lafayette, Louisiana, on August 27, 2008. At that time, Defendant Jon Coker was working as a salesman for Allis–Chalmers, an oil company. Plaintiff Bob Morris worked as a drilling consultant for Brigham Oil & Gas. The event which brought the parties together was a lunch meeting to discuss an upcoming drilling project in which the two companies would work together. As the participants gathered for the meeting, Coker was seated in the restaurant with a representative of Brigham Oil & Gas. When Morris arrived at the parking lot of the restaurant, he called the Brigham representative. The parties' characterization of what happens next differs. Plaintiffs explain that:
[u]pon realizing that Morris was the company man/consultant hired to oversee the drilling operations, Coker ventured outside to discuss and hopefully resolve any issues pertaining to his working relationship with Morris prior to the new business venture involving his current employer, Allis Chalmers. As Coker approached Morris with the intention of engaging in conversation, he spontaneously reacted when he saw ‘Morris' eyes light up’ and instinctively ‘for some reason threw a punch.’
[Record Document 131–1, pp. 4–5].
Defendant paints the same event in a slightly different light:
On the date of the incident, Coker arrived at the Riverside Inn restaurant, for a pre-spud meeting. Coker admitted that he knew Morris would be attending that meeting, but Morris had not yet arrived. Learning of Morris' arrival, Coker testified that he wanted to ‘confront’ him. He deliberately got up from the table where he was seated, exited the restaurant, spotted Morris—who was on his cell phone—, crossed the parking lot, and sucker-punched Morris in the head. Coker's attack sent the two men on the ground with Coker on top of Morris.
[Record Document 149–6, p. 3].
It is undisputed that Coker exited the restaurant, walked towards Morris, and punched him in the face.
It is also undisputed that the relationship between Morris and Coker was stormy before this incident.1 Some years back, Coker owned Coker Directional Drilling, a company that did business with Brigham Oil & Gas. On three separate occasions, Morris made clear that he thought Coker Directional Drilling was doing inadequate work. [Record Document 131–2, p. 10; Record Document 149–3, pp. 45–58]. During one of these incidents, he claimed that a Coker employee was intoxicated on the job. [Record Document 131–2, pp. 13–15]. Coker testified that when he found out that Morris was going to be the company man at the Lafayette meeting, he felt panicky and was afraid that he might be assaulted by Morris. [Record Document 149–4, p. 10]. There was no history of prior physical violence between the parties.
Illinois National issued a commercial umbrella liability policy to Allis Chalmers. The policy covers liability for bodily injury caused by “occurrences.” [Record Document 149–1, p. 3]. The word “occurrence” is defined “as respects Bodily Injury” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” [Record Document 149–1, p. 1]. The policy contains an intentional injury exclusion, which reads:
This insurance does not apply to Bodily Injury and Property Damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured. However, this exclusion does not apply to Bodily Injury or Property Damage resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
[Record Document 149–1, p. 10]. (emphasis in original).
The term “Insured” is defined in Section VII, Definitions, as:
1. The Named Insured; [and]
2. your employees ... but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business.
Id. at 21. (emphasis in original).
In the declarations section of the policy, “Allis–Chalmers Energy, Inc.” is listed as the “Named Insured.” Id. at 2. The Policy further specifies that:
Throughout this policy the words “you” and “your” refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations and any other person or organization qualifying as a Named Insured under this policy ...
The word Insured means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section VII. Definitions.
Except for headings, words that appear in bold print have special meaning. See Section VII. Definitions.
Id. at 3. (emphasis in original).
Illinois National has filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Coker was acting outside the course and scope of his employment when he punched Morris; that the intentional punch is not an “occurrence” as defined by the policy; and that the intentional injury exclusion bars coverage. Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the intentional injury exclusion, and a number of other exclusions, do not bar coverage.
An insurance policy is a contract between the parties, and it is thus construed using the rules of contract interpretation found in the Civil Code. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 630 So.2d 759, 763 (La.1993). When the words of an insurance contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, the contract must be enforced as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent. La. Civ.Code art. 2046; Peterson v. Schimek, 729 So.2d 1024, 1028 (La.1999). The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving that the claim in question falls within the policy's coverage. Doerr, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., 774 So.2d 119, 124 (La.2000). The insurer, however, bears the burden of proving that policy limits or exclusions apply. Tunstall v. Stierwald, 809 So.2d 916, 921 (La.2002). The purpose of liability insurance is to afford the insured protection from damage; therefore, claims and policies should be construed to effect, and not to deny, coverage. Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 634 So.2d 1180, 1183 (La.1994). The Louisiana Supreme Court has adopted a fact-intensive analysis of the insured's subjective intent to determine whether coverage is excluded under an intentional injury exclusion. Breland v. Schilling, 550 So.2d 609, 613 (La.1989). In the event an insurance clause is found to be ambiguous, it must be construed against the insurer. Id. at 610 (citing La. Civ.Code art. 2056). “Ambiguity will also be resolved by ascertaining how a reasonable insurance policy purchaser would construe the clause at the time the insurance contract was entered.” Id. at 610–611 (citing La. Civ.Code art. 2045).
Employers are liable for the “damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed.” La. Civ.Code art. 2320. In the leading case of LeBrane v. Lewis, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an employee who commits an intentional tort exercised the functions in which they were employed if their conduct was:
... so closely connected in time, place, and causation to [the employee's] employment-duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interests.
To determine whether the conduct was “so closely connected in time, place, and causation” to employment duties, the Court must consider the following factors:
1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment-rooted;
2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee's duties;
3) whether the tortious act occurred on the employment premises;
4) and whether the tortious act occurred during the hours of employment; Id. at 218;Russell v. Noullet, 721 So.2d 868, 871 n. 6 (La.1998).
Not every factor need be met in order to establish vicarious liability. Miller v. Keating, 349 So.2d 265, 268 (La.1977). The determination of whether an employee's tortious conduct is sufficiently employment-related is a mixed question of fact and law. Russell v. Noullet, 721 So.2d 868, 871 (La.1998).
Summary judgment is proper pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). When a defendant seeks summary judgment based on a claim or affirmative defense on which they bear the burden of proof at trial, they “must establish beyond per adventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgment in [their] favor.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir.1986).
When the moving party does not bear...
To continue reading
Request your trial