Smith v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 26 November 1991
• Docket Number: No. 91-CA-0537,91-CA-0537
• Citation: 592 So.2d 427
• Parties: Frederick SMITH, Sr. v. Lyndon S. MATTHEWS and Unknown X, Y, Z Insurer. 592 So.2d 427
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 427

592 So.2d 427

Frederick SMITH, Sr. v. Lyndon S. MATTHEWS and Unknown X, Y, Z Insurer.

No. 91-CA-0537.

592 So.2d 427

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 26, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1992.

John J. Jackson, III, Jackson and Stovall, New Orleans, for plaintiff/appellant.

James F. Ryan, Donovan & Lawler, Metairie, for defendants/appellees.

Before SCHOTT, C.J., PLOTKIN, J., and GULOTTA, J. Pro Tem.

JAMES C. GULOTTA, Judge Pro Tem.

The issue in this case is whether a "dwelling" insurance policy which insures the estate of a deceased person as the "named insured," provides liability coverage for an heir and/or executor for acts not related to his position as an heir/executor.

We conclude that it does not and affirm the judgment of the trial court granting a summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurer dismissing plaintiff's suit against that insurer.

Frederic Smith's claim arises out of an incident where he was shot by defendant Lyndon Matthews. The shooting occurred on the insured premises and was unrelated to defendant's role as an heir, executor or occupant of the premises. The alleged damages did not occur as a result of the condition or use of the insured premises. The incident grew out of a dispute over an unrelated personal debt between Smith and Matthews. The only connection with the insured dwelling is that the shooting occurred on the premises.

Although defendant Matthews and two other heirs had been sent into possession of the decedents estate, the policy remains in the name of the "estate of Charles Matthews."

The dwelling policy was issued by defendant Lafayette Insurance Company and contained a premises liability provision providing coverage for damages for bodily injury for which the insured is legally liable. Plaintiff asserts that the policy provided coverage for the acts of Lyndon Matthews as an insured by reason of his position as an heir/executor of the estate of his deceased father, Charles Matthews. According to plaintiff, if Matthews is not covered under the insurance policy as an insured, the policy does not provide coverage to anyone. Plaintiff claims that Matthews and the remaining two heirs have been sent into possession of the estate and coverage could only be applicable to them since the estate is not now an entity as such. We do not agree.

The policy, in pertinent part, defines an insured as follows:

a. An individual shown in the declaration as a named insured or the husband or wife of such an insured, but only with respect to the insured premises.

b. A member of a partnership or joint venture which is a named insured; but you are an insured only with respect to your liability as such and only with respect to the insured premises.

c. An executive officer, director or stockholder of an organization that is a named insured; but you are an insured only with respect to your duties as such and only with respect to the insured premises.

d. A person (other than an employee of the named insured) or organization while acting as a real estate manager.

It is clear that none of the above definitions is applicable to the plaintiff in the instant case.

However, Smith claims our jurisprudence is clear that any ambiguity in the policy must be construed against the insurer. We have no quarrel with this well settled rule,...