NYRESS MANNING ON * NO. 2025-CA-0384 BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, COREY WILLIAMS, JR., FOR * THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF COURT OF APPEAL DEREIAL MANNING AND * FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES FOURTH CIRCUIT * VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* RH WINDRUN, LLC, THE LYND COMPANY D/B/A LYND LIVING, XYZ SECURITY COMPANY, JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY, GHI INSURANCE COMPANY
APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2021-05388, DIVISION “I-14” Honorable Lori Jupiter, Judge ****** Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott ****** (Court composed of Judge Karen K. Herman, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge Monique G. Morial)
Eric A. Wright Matthew J. Pertuit WRIGHT GRAY HARRIS, LLC 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2710 New Orleans, Louisiana 70170
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Paula M. Wellons David A. Pote TAYLOR WELLONS POLITZ & DUHE, APLC 1555 Poydras St., Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED FEBRUARY 5, 2026 NEK Nyress Manning (“Ms. Manning”), on behalf of minor child, Corey Williams, KKH MGM Jr., (“Corey”) seeks review of the trial court’s February 10, 2025 judgment granting
James River Insurance Company’s (“James River”) motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
These wrongful death and survival actions arise from the shooting death of
Dereial Marie Manning (“Dereial”) on July 16, 2020, at approximately 3:20 A.M. at
the Carmel Spring Apartments, located at 12151 I-10 Service Road, in New Orleans,
Louisiana. Twenty-year-old Dereial and her minor child, Corey, were visiting her
friend’s apartment when two unknown assailants knocked on the apartment door and
shot her multiple times. Corey witnessed his mother being shot. Unfortunately,
Dereial succumbed to her gunshot injuries.
At the time of the incident, RH Windrun, LLC (“RH Windrun”) owned the
Carmel Spring Apartments and was insured under a Commercial General Liability
policy (“the Policy”) issued by James River – Policy No. 00099047-0 – with a policy
1 period from January 14, 2020, to January 14, 2021. The Policy provided
$1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 general aggregate coverage limits
and contained an “Assault and Battery Exclusion” Endorsement (“the Exclusion”)
that excluded coverage for damages “arising out of, resulting from, or in connection
with” assault or battery, failure to suppress or prevent assault or battery, and failure
to provide an environment safe from assault or battery, including failure to provide
adequate security. The Exclusion provided a definition of “assault” that included
“assault, sexual abuse, sexual assault, intimidation, sexual harassment, verbal abuse,
and any threatened harmful or offensive contact between two or more persons.”
Further, the Exclusion defined “battery” to include “battery, sexual abuse, sexual
battery, sexual molestation, and any actual harmful or offensive contact between two
or more persons.”
On June 24, 2021, Ms. Manning, as Corey’s grandmother and custodial
guardian, filed a petition for damages against multiple defendants including RH
Windrun, The Lynd Company d/b/a Lynd Living, and James River, among others.
The petition alleged premises liability, negligence, and wrongful death claims
arising from the defendants’ failure to provide adequate security to protect tenants
and guests from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties.
James River answered Ms. Manning’s petition, and subsequently filed a
motion for summary judgment on August 22, 2024, arguing that coverage was
excluded under the Exclusion. Ms. Manning opposed the motion asserting that (1)
the shooting did not constitute assault or battery as defined under Louisiana law; (2)
2 the Exclusion was ambiguous and should be construed against the insurer, and (3)
James River’s broad interpretation would violate Louisiana public policy and render
the policy illusory.
On December 19, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on James River’s motion
for summary judgment. During the hearing, James River maintained that the
Exclusion was “unambiguous, clear, and broad” and specifically covered “failure to
provide adequate security.” Conversely, Ms. Manning averred that the Exclusion
only applied to “bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury”
and did not mention homicide or shooting. RH Windrun, through counsel, adopted
Ms. Manning’s arguments in favor of coverage. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims
against James River with prejudice.
The trial court signed the judgment on February 10, 2025, and issued a notice
of signing of judgment on February 13, 2025. Five days after the issuance of the
notice of signing, Ms. Manning filed an expedited request for written reasons. The
trial court issued written reasons for judgment on May 21, 2025, finding that as
defined in the Policy, the shooting constituted both assault and battery; therefore, the
Exclusion applied to preclude coverage. The trial court rejected Ms. Manning’s
arguments regarding the Exclusion’s ambiguity and its interpretation under
Louisiana law, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding
the applicability of the Exclusion.
3 On March 7, 2025, Ms. Manning filed a motion of appeal, which the trial court
granted. This timely appeal follows.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion
for summary judgment is de novo. Kazen v. Red Lion Hotels Corp., 2021-01820, p.
2 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 267, 269 (citation omitted). “When the facts are not in
dispute, summary judgment is appropriate as the appellate court need only ‘look
solely to the legal question presented by the motion for summary judgment.’”
Carrere Holdings, LLC v. Williamson, 2024-0141, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/17/24),
400 So. 3d 241, 247 (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. Manning asserts several assignments of error; however, the
dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in granting James River’s motion for
summary judgment.1
“[Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article] 966(A)(3) provides that a
motion for summary judgment will be granted ‘if the motion, memorandum, and
1 Ms. Manning asserts five assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in
granting James River Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment by misinterpreting the Assault and Battery Exclusion in the insurance policy and failing to recognize that the shooting death of Dereial Manning did not constitute “assault” or “battery” as defined under Louisiana law; (2) the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact concerning the applicability of the Assault and Battery Exclusion and the scope of coverage under the James River Insurance Company policy; (3) the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to construe the ambiguous Assault and Battery Exclusion against the insurer and in favor of coverage, as required under Louisiana insurance law; (4) the trial court erred as a matter of law in applying the Assault and Battery Exclusion in a manner that violates Louisiana public policy and renders the insurance policy illusory, thereby depriving the insured of meaningful coverage for premises liability claims; and (5) the trial court erred as a matter of law in failing to recognize that the broad interpretation of the Assault and Battery Exclusion advocated by James River Insurance Company would impermissibly exclude coverage for the very type of third-party criminal acts that premises liability insurance is designed to cover.
4 supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that
the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Manning v. RH Windrun,
LLC, 2023-0588, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/1/24), 421 So. 3d 1, 6. “The summary
judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.” Id. (citing La. C.C.P. art. 996(A)(2)). “The
procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends.” Id.
“Interpretation of an insurance policy usually involves a legal question that
can be resolved properly within the framework of a motion for summary judgment.”
Forrest as Tr. for Jack Thrash Forrest III Tr. v. Ville St. John Owners Ass'n, Inc.,
2018-0175, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/7/18), 259 So.3d 1063, 1068 (quoting Thebault
v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 2015-0800, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/20/16), 195 So. 3d 113,
116). In the matter herein, James River bears the burden of establishing that Ms.
Manning’s claims against RH Windrun fall within the Exclusion.
The Assault and Battery Exclusion
As there are no factual issues in dispute, the only legal question that exists is
whether the Policy excluded coverage of Ms. Manning’s claims against RH
Windrun. The Louisiana Supreme Court has provided the following guidance
regarding insurance coverage:
Whether an insurance policy clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage is a question of law decided from the four corners of the policy. Baack v. McIntosh, [20]20-1054, p. 4 (La. 6/30/21), 333 So.3d 1206, 1211.
An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules for the interpretation of contracts set forth in our Civil Code. Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., [20]07- 0054, p. 7 (La. 5/22/07), 956 So.2d 583, 590. Interpretation of an
5 insurance policy is the determination of the common intent of the parties – this analysis starts by examining the words of the policy itself. Id. (citing La. C.C. arts. 2045 and 2046). Words and phrases in an insurance policy must be given their generally prevailing meaning unless they are words of art or have acquired a technical meaning. Id., [20]07-0554, p. 8, 956 So.2d at 589 (citing La. C.C. art. 2047). When the words of an insurance policy are clear and explicit and do not lead to absurd consequences, courts must enforce the language as written. Id., [20]07-0054, p. 8, 956 So.2d at 589 (citing La. C.C. art. 2046). Courts lack the authority to alter the terms of an insurance policy under the guise of interpretation and should not create an ambiguity where none exists. Id., [20]07-0554, pp. 8-9, 956 So.2d at 589. An insurance policy is construed against an insurer and in favor of coverage only when an ambiguity remains after applying the aforementioned general rules for the interpretation of contracts. Id., [20]07-0054, p. 9, 956 So.2d at 590 (further observing that for strict construction to apply, an ambiguous provision must be susceptible to two or more reasonable alternative interpretations); Edwards v. Daugherty, [20]03-2103, p. 12 (La. 10/1/04), 883 So.2d 932, 941. The language of an insurance policy may be general without being ambiguous. Ledbetter, [19]95-0895, p. 6, 665 So.2d at 1170 (citing United National Ins. Co. v. Waterfront New York Realty Corp., 994 F.2d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Kazen, 2021-01820, pp. 3-4, 346 So. 3d at 269-270. With these precepts in mind, we
examine Ms. Manning’s assignments of error in connection with the Policy at issue.
1. Does this Shooting Constitute “Assault” or “Battery” under the Policy Definitions and Louisiana Law?
Ms. Manning asserts that the shooting death of Dereial did not constitute
“assault” or “battery” under the policy definitions or under Louisiana law. We
disagree.
The Exclusion at issue defines “assault” to include “any threatened harmful
or offensive contact between two or more persons,” and “battery” to include “any
actual harmful or offensive contact between two or more persons.” The undisputed
facts establish that Dereial was shot multiple times by two unknown assailants,
resulting in her death. This shooting constitutes “actual harmful contact” within the
plain meaning of the policy’s definition of “battery.”
6 Ms. Manning contends that the shooting did not constitute “assault” because
Dereial did not have sufficient time to perceive the impending danger and experience
reasonable apprehension of harm. Under Louisiana law, assault is defined as “an
attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional placing of another in reasonable
apprehension of receiving a battery.” La. R.S. 14:36. However, the policy’s
definition of assault is broader than the statutory definition and includes “any
threatened harmful or offensive contact.” Indeed, the shooting of Dereial involved
threatened harmful contact, regardless of whether she had time to apprehend the
threat.
Further, Ms. Manning argues that the shooting did not constitute “battery”
because there was no direct physical contact between the assailants and Dereial.
According to La. R.S. 14:33, battery is defined, in part, as “the intentional use of
force or violence upon the person of another.” Louisiana courts have recognized that
“[b]attery does not require direct bodily contact between the actor and the victim.”
Swope v. Columbian Chemicals Co., 281 F.3d 185, 196 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Frank L. Maraist & Thomas C. Galligan, Louisiana Tort Law § 2-6(a), at 28 (1996)).
“The contact may be with an inanimate object controlled or precipitated by the actor,
such as the surgeon’s scalpel, a bullet[,] or even a thrown hamburger.” Id. The
bullets that struck Dereial were inanimate objects controlled by the assailants, and
the resulting gunshot wounds constitute harmful contact under any reasonable
interpretation of the Policy’s definition of battery.
7 The Louisiana Supreme Court has consistently held that assault and battery
exclusions are unambiguous and apply to violent criminal acts. In Ledbetter v.
Concord General Corp., the Court considered an assault and battery exclusion in the
context of kidnapping and rape. 1995-0809 (La. 1/6/96), 665 So. 2d 1166. The Court
recognized:
It is neither possible nor desirable for an insurance contract to enumerate the various kinds and degrees of attacks encompassed by the assault and battery exclusion. The clause need not mention rape or strangulation or mayhem, or other greater or lesser invasions of the person; all are subsumed in the broad language employed.
Id. at p. 6, 665 So. 2d at 1170 (quoting United National Ins. Co. v. Waterfront New
York Realty Corp., 994 F.2d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 1993)). The Court further stated that
“[i]n the civil context in which the insurance contract was made, the common
meanings of ‘assault’ and ‘battery’ subsume all forms of tortious menacing and
unwanted touching.” Id.
More recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld an assault and battery
exclusion where the policy specifically defined the exclusionary terms. In Kazen,
the plaintiffs filed suit after their daughter was kidnapped from a motel parking lot
and later found deceased. 2021-01820, pp. 1-2, 346 So.3d at 269. The insurer denied
coverage pursuant to a policy exclusion which barred coverage arising out of
“assault,” “battery,” or “physical altercation,” and specifically defined those three
terms. Id. at p. 2, 346 So.3d at 269. The Court held that the insurer had no obligation
under the policy to defend or indemnify the motel, based on the “plain meaning” of
the words in the policy’s definition of “physical altercation.” Id. at p. 4, 346 So.3d
8 at 270. The Court reached this conclusion on the logical observation that the
daughter had been undisputedly taken against her will. Id.
Both Ledbetter and Kazen apply to the present scenario. The shooting death
of Dereial undeniably falls within the broad language of the Exclusion. The Policy’s
definitions of “assault” and “battery” are comprehensive and unambiguous as
applied to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its
determination that the shooting constituted both assault and battery under the policy
definitions.
2. Is the “Assault and Battery Exclusion” Ambiguous?
Second, Ms. Manning argues that the Exclusion is ambiguous and must be
construed against the insurer in favor of coverage. Again, we disagree.
The Exclusion contained within the Policy at issue is clear and unambiguous.
The Exclusion provides, in pertinent part:
This insurance does not apply to damages or expenses due to “bodily injury” [or] “property damage” [. . . ] arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with:
1. Assault or battery, whether or not caused or committed by or at the instructions of, or at the direction of or negligence of you, any insured, any person, or any causes whatsoever;
2. The failure to suppress or prevent assault or battery by you, any insured, or any person;
3. The failure to provide an environment safe from assault or battery, including but not limited to the failure to provide adequate security, or the failure to warn of the dangers of the environment which could contribute to assault or battery[.]
The Exclusion also defines “assault” and “battery” in comprehensive terms that
leave no room for ambiguity. As stated in the Exclusion:
9 Assault includes but is not limited to, assault, sexual abuse, sexual assault, intimidation, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and any threatened harmful or offensive contact between two or more persons, whether or not caused or committed by or at the instructions of, or at the direction of or negligence of you, any insured, any person, or any causes whatsoever.
Battery includes, but is not limited to, battery, sexual abuse, sexual battery, sexual molestation, and any actual harmful or offensive contact between two or more persons, whether or not caused or committed by or at the instructions of, or at the direction of or negligence of you, any insured, any person, or any causes whatsoever.
Ms. Manning contends that the Exclusion is ambiguous because it does not
specify whether the threat must be communicated to the victim or whether the victim
must be aware of the threat, and because it does not clarify whether indirect contact
through projectiles constitutes the required “contact between” persons. These
arguments are unpersuasive. The policy language is clear and explicit. The phrase
“any threatened harmful or offensive contact between two or more persons”
unambiguously encompasses the shooting of Dereial, regardless of whether she was
aware of the threat. Similarly, the phrase “any actual harmful or offensive contact
between two or more persons” unambiguously encompasses the gunshot wounds
inflicted upon Dereial, regardless of whether there was direct physical contact
between the assailants and the victim.
Additionally, Ms. Manning argues that the phrases “arising out of,” “resulting
from,” and “in connection with” are undefined and overly broad. These phrases are
standard language in insurance policies and have well-established meanings. When
interpreting a policy exclusion, “the phrase ‘arising out of’ is broader in meaning
than the term ‘caused by,’ and means ‘originating from,’ having its origin in,
10 growing out of . . . flowing from, ‘incident to, or having connection with.’” Forrest
as Tr. For Jack Thrash Forrest III Tr., 2018-0175, p. 16, 259 So. 3d at 1073 (quoting
Taurus Holdings Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 913 So.2d 528
(Fla. 2005)). The shooting death of Derieal clearly “arose out of,” “resulted from,”
and was “in connection with” the assault and battery committed by the unknown
assailants. Therefore, we find that the Exclusion is unambiguous and clearly applies
to the facts of this case.
3. Does the Exclusion Violate Public Policy or Render the Policy Illusory?
Next, Ms. Manning asserts that the trial court’s broad interpretation of the
Exclusion violates Louisiana public policy and renders the insurance policy illusory.
We find Ms. Manning’s argument unpersuasive.
“Insurance companies have the right to limit coverage in any manner they
desire, so long as the limitations do not conflict with statutory provisions or public
policy.” Ledbetter, 1995-0809, p. 4, 665 So. 2d at 1169 (citing Reynolds v. Select
Properties, Ltd., 1993-1480 (La. 4/11/94), 634 So. 2d 1180, 1183). Ms. Manning
has not established that the Exclusion conflicts with any statutory provision or public
policy.
It is Ms. Manning’s contention that Louisiana public policy strongly favors
insurance coverage and compensation for victims of violent crimes, and that the
broad interpretation of the Exclusion would effectively eliminate coverage for
premises liability claims arising from third-party criminal acts. However, she fails
to provide support for the notion that Louisiana law or public policy prevents
11 insurers from excluding third-party criminality from premises liability policies.
There is no jurisprudence that demonstrates that Louisiana law or public policy
prevents insurers from excluding third-party criminality from premises liability
policies.
Moreover, Ms. Manning maintains that the broad interpretation of the
Exclusion would render the policy illusory by depriving the insured of meaningful
coverage for premises liability claims. A policy is illusory if it fails to provide the
coverage that a reasonable insured would expect based on the policy language and
the premiums paid. See Forrest as Tr. For Jack Thrash Forrest III Tr., 2018-0175,
p. 20, 259 So. 3d at 1076 (citing Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. Scheyd, Inc., 1995-2653,
p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/24/96), 673 So. 2d 274, 279). However, the Policy does not
eliminate all coverage for RH Windrun. The Policy provides comprehensive general
liability coverage for accidents, including those caused by the insured’s negligence,
subject to various enumerated exclusions. The “Assault and Battery Exclusion” is
but one of many exclusions in the Policy. The Policy still provides coverage for
numerous other types of claims, such as slip and fall accidents, other dangerous
physical conditions, or scenarios caused by RH Windrun’s negligence that do not
involve assault or battery. The presence of one exclusion does not render the entire
Policy illusory.
The Policy provided $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00
aggregate coverage limits, with an annual premium of $408,461.00. Ms. Manning
avers that this substantial premium indicates that RH Windrun expected coverage
12 for premises liability claims, including those arising from third-party criminal acts.
However, the premium reflects the overall coverage provided by the policy, not
coverage for any particular type of claim. The fact that RH Windrun paid a
substantial premium does not establish that the policy was intended to cover claims
arising from assault and battery, which are specifically excluded by clear and
unambiguous language. Consequently, we find that the Exclusion does not violate
Louisiana public policy and does not render the policy illusory.
4. Are there Genuine Issues of Material Fact Precluding Summary Judgment?
Last, Ms. Manning argues that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding
the applicability of the Exclusion and the scope of coverage under the Policy. This
argument is without merit.
James River established that the Exclusion unambiguously excludes coverage
for damages arising out of the shooting death of Dereial. The undisputed facts
establish that Dereial was shot and killed by unknown assailants, which constitutes
assault and battery under the policy definitions. The Exclusion also specifically
covers “failure to provide an environment safe from assault or battery, including but
not limited to the failure to provide adequate security,” which encompasses Ms.
Manning’s claims against RH Windrun for negligent failure to provide adequate
security.
Ms. Manning asserts that material facts remain in dispute regarding RH
Windrun’s knowledge of prior criminal activity, the foreseeability of violent crime,
and the adequacy of security measures. However, these factual disputes are
13 irrelevant to the question of whether the Exclusion applies. The Exclusion applies
regardless of whether RH Windrun knew of prior criminal activity, whether the
violent crime was foreseeable, or whether the security measures were adequate. The
Exclusion specifically covers “failure to provide an environment safe from assault
or battery, including but not limited to the failure to provide adequate security,” and
it applies “whether or not caused or committed by or at the instructions of, or at the
direction of or negligence of you, any insured, any person, or any causes
whatsoever.”
Additionally, Ms. Manning contends that the policy language creates
ambiguities that require factual development. However, as discussed above, the
policy language is clear and unambiguous. The fact that the Exclusion may be broad
does not make it ambiguous. The broad language of the Exclusion does not create
genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, we
find that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the applicability of the
Exclusion.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s February 10, 2025
judgment granting James River’s motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED