Robertson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-523,93-523 |
| Citation | 629 So.2d 445 |
| Parties | Suzanne ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Philip Gardiner Hunter, Alexandria, for Suzanne Robertson.
Larry Alan Stewart, Alexandria, for Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co., et al.
George Carnal Gaiennie III, Alexandria, for Rapides Parish School Bd., intervenor.
Before LABORDE, COOKS and DECUIR, JJ.
This is an appeal by Suzanne Robertson from the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Aetna Casualty and Surety Insurance Company, dismissing plaintiff's suit against Aetna with prejudice.
The record reflects that Ms. Robertson was employed as a school teacher in Rapides Parish on September 7, 1990. On that day, Ms. Robertson allegedly paddled one of her students, Shana Petre. Thereafter, Shana's mother, Lajuana Petre, went to the school where a confrontation ensued with Ms. Robertson. Plaintiff alleges she was injured during an altercation when Ms. Petre pushed her against a wall.
Ms. Robertson filed suit against Lajuana Petre and Aetna alleging that Aetna provided liability insurance coverage pursuant to a homeowner's policy issued to Vincent Petre, Lajuana Petre's ex-husband. It is undisputed that Mr. and Mrs. Petre were divorced in 1986 and were divorced at the time of the alleged incident giving rise to this suit. At the time of the altercation, Vincent Petre was sole owner of the home designated in the policy, having obtained sole ownership in a community property partition. After the divorce, Lajuana Petre and the couple's two children continued to reside at the residence covered by the policy.
Aetna filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Lajuana Petre was not a resident of Vincent Petre's household and was not a "relative" of the named insured, Vincent Petre, under the terms of the policy at issue. The trial judge issued written reasons and rendered judgment in favor of Aetna dismissing plaintiff's demands with prejudice, finding that although Lajuana Petre was a resident of the insured's household, she was not a "relative" of the insured by either blood or marriage within the meaning of the policy. We affirm.
The policy at issue provides coverage to the "insured" which is defined in the policy as follows:
"Insured" means you and residents of your household who are:
a. your relatives; or b. other persons under the age of 21 and in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...related by blood as well as marriage. Zeringue, 654 So.2d at 723; see also Hernandez, supra; Robertson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Ins. Co., 629 So.2d 445, 446 (La. Ct.App. 3 Cir.1993); Liprie v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 143 So.2d 597, 601 (La. Ct.App.3 Webster's Universal Unabridged ......
-
Parker v. Parker, S-02-739.
...relative at the time of the transfer. Cf., Ex Parte Wactor v. Wactor, 245 Miss. 132, 146 So.2d 540 (1962); Robertson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co., 629 So.2d 445 (La.App.1993) (ex-wife is not her ex-husband's relative under homeowner's insurance policy because she is not related by blood or......
-
94 1411 La.App. 1 Cir. 4/7/95, Zeringue v. Zeringue
...the issue of whether an ex-wife was a "relative" under the terms of a homeowner's policy in Robertson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., 629 So.2d 445 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1993). Citing Hernandez, the third circuit held that an ex-wife was not a relative within the context of an insuranc......
-
Skinner v. Fleet
...is not a "relative" as that term is commonly understood and contemplated by DOSHA. SeeRobertson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., 629 So.2d 445, 446 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1993) (holding that a divorced wife is not a "relative" of her ex-husband under a policy of insurance as she is not......