Stewart v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-25,82-25
• Citation: 420 So.2d 1217
• Parties: Huey P. STEWART, Plaintiff & Appellee, v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant & Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1217

420 So.2d 1217

Huey P. STEWART, Plaintiff & Appellee, v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant & Appellant.

No. 82-25.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana,

Third Circuit.

Oct. 13, 1982.

Brittain & Williams, R. Stuart Wright, Natchitoches, for defendant and appellant.

Gahagan & Gahagan, Marvin F. Gahagan, Natchitoches, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and LABORDE, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

Huey P. Stewart sues his homeowner's insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, for storm damages to the roof of his mobile home. The district judge awarded plaintiff $1,000 for the cost of repairs, but denied penalties and attorney's fees. Defendant appealed. The plaintiff answered the appeal, seeking penalties and attorney's fees.

The issues are: (1) Does the homeowner's policy cover the damaged roof? (2) Is plaintiff entitled to penalties and attorney's fees?

FACTS

The following facts were stipulated by the parties:

On March 21, 1981, the roof of plaintiff's double-wide mobile home was damaged by high winds during the term of the policy. The damaged roof was not the original roof, but was a roof which plaintiff had built on top of the original roof after the homeowner's policy went into effect on September 30, 1980. The plaintiff failed to inform the defendant that an additional roof had been constructed on top of the original roof, nor did he pay an additional premium as a result of the new roof.

Additional facts not included in the stipulation were established at trial. The plaintiff testified that in January, 1981, he found several leaks in the original shingle roof of his mobile home. Rather than pull off the old shingles and replace them with new ones, he decided to insulate the roof at the same time he repaired it. He nailed boards onto the old roof decking, placed six inches of fiber glass insulation on the old roof, then put a new aluminum roof over that. He further testified that both roofs, new and old, were damaged by the March 21 storm.

In denying coverage, the defendant relies on Section 1, Coverage A, of the policy which reads in pertinent part "It is specifically agreed that Coverage A--Mobile home, does not include awnings, outside radio or television antenna and its tower, shelters, cabanas, porches, completely enclosed additions, carports, or other structures and equipment not included in A, B or C above which were not part of the mobile home when purchased new."

The defendant further relies on Section 1, Coverage B, titled "Adjacent Structures and Equipment." It provides:

"1. Property Covered. This coverage applies to awnings, shelters, cabanas, porches, completely enclosed additions, carports, portable air conditioners and other structures and equipment attached to or being used in connection with the mobile home insured under Coverage A provided that this coverage applies only to those items which are listed and described in the Declarations of this policy in which a specific premium charge has been made."

COVERAGE

In a suit to recover benefits under a policy, the insurer has the burden of proving facts which limit its coverage. Massachusetts Protective Association v. Ferguson, 168 La. 271, 121 So. 863 (1929); Paret v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, 366 So.2d 634, writ denied 369 So.2d 139 (La.1979). Construction of the unambiguous terms of a policy is a matter of law rather than fact, and any exclusion from coverage must be made clear and unmistakable. If more than one interpretation of an exclusion is reasonable, the one affording coverage to the insured will be adopted. Paret v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, supra.

The law applicable to insurance exclusions was stated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Benton Casing Service, Inc. v. AVEMCO Insurance Company, 379 So.2d 225 (La.1979):

" Briefly stated, the law is to the effect that the insurer is required to clearly express exclusions to its insuring obligations and that any doubt or ambiguity is to be resolved against the insurer, against forfeiture, and in favor of what reason and probability dictate was intended by the parties with respect to coverage."

The defendant contends that the above quoted exclusionary clause made it clear that anything which was not a part of the mobile home when it was purchased new would not be covered under the policy of insurance. It argues that the intent of the provision is to exclude any and all structures which might be added onto the mobile home after the original purchase.

The trial court found that Section 1, Coverage A of the policy is ambiguous because, while it is clear what is meant by an awning or an outside radio or television antenna and its tower, the language of the policy does not indicate what is encompassed by the phrase "completely enclosed additions, carports, or other structures and equipment * * * which were not part of the mobile home when purchased new." (emphasis added) We agree. The clause is ambiguous and must be interpreted so that the ambiguity is resolved against the insured.

The defendant asserts...