Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

559 So. 2d 146, 1990 La. App. LEXIS 2251, 1990 WL 44156

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 1, 1990

DocketNo. W90-111

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 559 So. 2d 146 (Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.) 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

Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 559 So. 2d 146, 1990 La. App. LEXIS 2251, 1990 WL 44156 (La. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

The trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Nautilus Insurance Company. There is no serious dispute of fact that relator’s insured, Mako’s bar, is engaged in the business of selling and serving alcoholic beverages. Opposing argument notwithstanding, any liability of Mako’s in the instant suit must necessarily stem from the fact that Mako’s is in the business of selling and serving alcohol. Exclusion (h) of relator’s policy issued to Mako’s excludes from coverage damages for which Mako’s is held liable as an organization engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, or serving alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding this language ambiguous and in failing to grant relator’s motion for summary judgment. See Morrison v. Miller, 452 So.2d 390 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984).

IT IS ORDERED that the trial court’s judgment denying relator’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby reversed. All actions against relator are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

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

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

The trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Nautilus Insurance Company. There is no serious dispute of fact that relator’s insured, Mako’s bar, is engaged in the business of selling and serving alcoholic beverages. Opposing argument notwithstanding, any liability of Mako’s in the instant suit must necessarily stem from the fact that Mako’s is in the business of selling and serving alcohol. Exclusion (h) of relator’s policy issued to Mako’s excludes from coverage damages for which Mako’s is held liable as an organization engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, or serving alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding this language ambiguous and in failing to grant relator’s motion for summary judgment. See Morrison v. Miller, 452 So.2d 390 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984).

IT IS ORDERED that the trial court’s judgment denying relator’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby reversed. All actions against relator are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 146, 1990 La. App. LEXIS 2251, 1990 WL 44156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duplin-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-lactapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack