Dotson v. Regency Park Townhome Owners Ass'n

229 So. 3d 606
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 13, 2016
DocketNO. 2016-C-0027
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 229 So. 3d 606 (Dotson v. Regency Park Townhome Owners Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dotson v. Regency Park Townhome Owners Ass'n, 229 So. 3d 606 (La. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

[607]*607Relator, Colony Insurance Company, seeks review of the trial court’s January 8, 2016 judgment denying its motion for summary judgment. Because we find the Colony policy at issue does not provide coverage for plaintiffs claims, we reverse the trial court judgment, grant summary judgment in favor of Colony and dismiss plaintiffs claims against Colony with prejudice.

On February 9, 2013, plaintiff, Nicole Dotson, slipped and fell at an event at the Regency Reception Hall located at 7300 Downman Road in New Orleans. Plaintiff timely filed a petition for damages against the owner of the reception hail, Regency Park Townhome Owners Association (“Regency Park”), and its insurer. Regency Park answered the petition and filed a third party demand against KMP, LLC and Colony Insurance Company.

12According to Regency Park’s third party demand, KMP leased the reception hall from Regency Park for the period of August 1, 2009 through July 31, 2014. The lease allegedly required KMP, among other things, to maintain commercial general liability insurance naming Regency Park as an additional insured and to indemnify and defend Regency Park as to all claims arising out of the 'use of the premises. Regency Park further alleged that KMP obtained a commercial general liability insurance policy from Colony, which provides coverage to Regency Park as an additional insured for claims asserted by plaintiff.1 The named insured listed on the insurance policy is KMP, LLC/Kurte Pellerin (“KMP”). The policy stated that the policy period was from October 31, 2012 through October 31, 2013, but the policy was cancelled on December 20, 2012 due to nonpayment to the finance company. Plaintiffs accident occurred after the policy was cancelled.

On August 31, 2015, Colony filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the insurance policy does not afford coverage for plaintiffs claims and Colony does not owe defense and indemnity to Regency Park,. Regency Park and plaintiff .opposed the motion for summary judgment, arguing that Regency Park was an additional insured under the Colony policy, and that Colony failed to properly provide notice to KMP and Regency Park prior to cancellation of the policy. Following a hearing on December 10, 2015, the trial court denied Colony’s motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain. ’

Colony timely filed this writ application, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Colony argues that there are no issues of fact that the policy was properly cancelled prior to plaintiffs accident, the policy does not afford coverage for plaintiffs claims and Colony is not obligated to defend any party against plaintiffs claims.

| .¡Appellate courts review rulings on motions for summary judgment de novo, utilizing the same criteria applied by the trial courts to determine .whether summary judgment is appropriate. Hooper v. Brown, 2015-0339 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/22/15), 171 So.3d 995, 999. At the time of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966 provided that summary judgment shall be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, [608]*608answers to interrogatories, and admission, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for .purposes of the motion for summary judgment, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2). The applicable version of La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2) set forth the burden of proof on a motion for summary judgment as follows:

■ The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the- movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mov-ant’s burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence , of factual support for one or more elements essential to the .adverse, partjds claim,action, or defense. Thereafter, if the adverse’ party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact,

Both Regency Park and plaintiff contend that under La. R.S. 9:3550, entitled “Insurance Premium Finance Companies,” Colony was required to provide notice of the insurance policy cancellation2. La. R.S. 9:3550 specifies acts to be | ¿performed by the premium finance company ’in order to cancel an insurance contract.- In this matter, the policy was not cancelled by the insurer, Colony, but by the named insured, KMP, through power of attorney held by the premium finance company. Capital Premium Financing, Inc., the premium finance company in this matter, not Colony, was responsible for notifying the insured, KMP, and its agent of the cancellation of [609]*609the insurance policy,3 The only notification requirements placed upon the insurer in La. R.S. 9:3550 are stated in Section (G)(4) as follows:.

Upon receipt of the notice of cancellation, the insurer shall give notice to any governmental agency, holder of a security interest in the insured property, or other third party as shown in the records of the insurer requiring statutory, regulation, or contractual notice and which were not given by the premium finance company as provided in, Paragraph (3) of this Subsection. The insurer shall give the prescribed notice on behalf of itself or the insured to any , governmental agency, | ¡¡holder of a security interest in the insured property, or third party on or before the fifth business day after the day it receives a copy of the notice of cancellation from the insurance premium finance company and shall determine the effective date of cancellation taking into consideration the number of days notice required to complete the cancellation if such notice is given by the insurer, otherwise the effective date of cancellation shall be calculated from the date the premium finance company sent the notice to such governmental agency, holder of. a security interest in the insured property, or other third party taking into consideration the number of days notice required to complete the cancellation.

Regency Park is not listed as an additional insured on the policy -or named in the premium finance agreement.4 There is no evidence that Regency Park was entitled to notice of cancellation by the insurer pursuant to La. R.S. 9:3 550(G)(4). Thus, Colony was under no obligation to notify Regency Park when Colony received notice of cancellation.

On December 6,2012, Capital sent KMP and its agent a notice of -intent to cancel the insurance coverage indicating that the policy coverage would be cancelled on December 20, 2012 if the past due amount was not received by Capital prior to the cancellation date. On December 20, 2012, Capital provided Colony, KMP and KMP’s agent with notice that KMP’s premium finance agreement was in default, and that the policy was' cancelled. Because the policy was cancelled on December 20, 2012, it was not in effect at the time of the plaintiffs accident on February 9, 2013.

Because wfe’ find that no genuine issues of material fact remain and that the Colo[610]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 So. 3d 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dotson-v-regency-park-townhome-owners-assn-lactapp-2016.