Ursin v. Oubre
| Decision Date | 15 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 7838,7838 |
| Citation | 343 So.2d 1189 |
| Parties | Wilbert URSIN, Jr. v. Coleman OUBRE, Administrator of the Estate of his minor daughter, Kelly M. Oubre, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Robert R. Faucheaux, Jr., Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer & Matthews, Paul B. Deal, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before SAMUEL, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.
Appellant, Wilbert Ursin, Jr., filed suit against Coleman Oubre (the Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Kelly M. Oubre), Israel Louque, Sr. (grandfather of Kelly M. Oubre) and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (the liability insurer of Mr. Louque), for damages sustained in a vehicular accident on September 26, 1974, involving Ursin's motorcycle and a vehicle owned by Mr. Louque and operated by Kelly Oubre, a minor at the time of the accident. By amended petition, Ursin added Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (hereafter, 'Aetna'), the automobile liability insurer of Coleman Oubre, as a co-defendant. In its answer, Aetna admits coverage of Coleman Oubre but avers that Kelly Oubre is not covered by the policy. Thereafter, the trial court rendered summary judgment (without written reasons) in favor of Aetna, dismissing Ursin's suit as to Aetna only, from which Ursin suspensively appeals .
Ursin's contentions emphasize that Coleman Oubre was the legal administrator of the estate of Kelly Oubre, and, thus, responsible for her alleged tortious conduct under LSA-C.C. Arts. 146, 2317 and 2318. However, this issue is not properly before us. The motion for summary judgment and the decree granting the motion were specifically limited to Ursin's claim vis-a-vis Aetna--not Coleman Oubre. The focus of the trial judge's attention was, necessarily, directed toward and limited to the automobile liability insurance contract and its provisions. Thus, the issue presented then and now is whether Kelly Oubre was an insured within the terms of the policy . The potential individual liability vel non of Coleman Oubre is without the scope of our review.
The insurance policy issued by Aetna provides that 'a relative' of the named Insured (i.e. Coleman H. Oubre) driving a 'non-owned' automobile is also an insured for the purpose of coverage. Moreover, under a section entitled 'DEFINITIONS,' we find the following:
"Relative' means a person related to the named Insured by blood, marriage or adoption, who is a resident of the same household, provided neither such relative nor his spouse owns a private passenger automobile.'
The question thereby becomes whether or not Kelly Oubre, who undoubtedly is a relative, could be considered 'a resident of the same household' as the named insured, Coleman Oubre.
The record shows that approximately two months prior to the accident on September 26, 1974, Kelly Oubre's parents were physically separated, with Coleman Oubre acquiring a separate home apart from Kelly and her mother. A petition for separation was filed by Marie Louis Oubre, Kelly's mother, on August 7, 1974, and on August 8, 1974, Mrs. Oubre was granted the provisional custody over Kelly. Thereafter, on September 23, 1974, after trial, judgment was rendered pursuant to a stipulation between Mr. and Mrs. Oubre, awarding Kelly's mother, Mrs. Oubre, 'care, custody and control' of Kelly and condemning Mr. Oubre to pay child support and alimony pendente lite. The judgment further ordered that Coleman Oubre pay 'liability and collision insurance for plaintiff's community vehicle. ' Three days later, September 26, 1974, Kelly, who was living with her mother pursuant to the court's decree, was involved in an accident while driving her grandfather's car.
In Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 248 La. 246, 178, So.2d 238 (1965), the phrase 'a relative of the named Insured who is a resident of the same household' was held to cover Daniel Taylor's father in Arkansas although Daniel lived and worked with his uncle in Louisiana, thus allowing plaintiff to sue the insurer of Daniel's father due to the tortious conduct of Daniel.
Manuel v. American Employers Ins. Co., 228 So.2d 321 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1969), involved a 24-year-old plaintiff who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Williams
...Court ruled child not resident of father's household, although parents only separated for two months. Ursin v. Oubre, 343 So.2d 1189 (La.Ct.App.1977). Change in status by law--here, divorce decree awarding of son to mother--deemed to make son a legal resident of only mother's Chapman v. All......
-
Pierce v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 8062-8-I
...policy, the court held the son legally resided with his mother and was not a resident of his father's household. Accord, Ursin v. Oubre, 343 So.2d 1189 (La.App.1977) (construing a nonowned auto We are persuaded that under the facts of the present case, John B. Pierce and Charles David Pierc......
-
Countryside Cas. Co. v. McCormick
...Kemp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 442 So.2d 642 (La.App.1983); Bearden v. Rucker, 418 So.2d 713 (La.App.1982); Ursin v. Oubre, 343 So.2d 1189 (La.App.1977); Chapman v. Allstate Insurance Company, 306 So.2d 414 (La.App.1975); Pierce v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 29 Wash.App. 32, 627 P.2d 152 (......
-
962109 La.App. 1 Cir. 9/23/97, Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...court concluded that the minor son was not an insured under his father's policy. Chapman, 306 So.2d at 416. See also Ursin v. Oubre, 343 So.2d 1189 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977) (where the minor daughter lived with her mother, who had been awarded legal custody, the minor was not a resident of her......