Seruntine v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Seruntine v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

42 So. 3d 968, 2010 La. LEXIS 1827, 2010 WL 3448503

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedSeptember 3, 2010

Docket2010-CC-1108

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 42 So. 3d 968 (Seruntine v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seruntine v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 42 So. 3d 968, 2010 La. LEXIS 1827, 2010 WL 3448503 (La. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

It is well settled that it is the insured’s obligation to read the policy when received, since the insured is deemed to know the policy contents. Isidore Newman School v. J. Everett Eaves, Inc., 09-2161 at p. 12 (La.7/6/10), 42 So.3d 352, 359; see also City Blueprint & Supply Co., Inc. v. Boggio, 08-1093 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/17/08), 3 So.3d 62. In the instant case, plaintiffs’ policies clearly revealed their flood limits were lower than their commercial policy limits and their properties’ value. Moreover, it is undisputed that a review of plaintiffs’ commercial policies would have revealed these policies excluded flood damage.

Under these circumstances, plaintiffs knew or should have known of their deficient coverage no later than 2003 on the Center Street property, and no later than 2004 on the Nancy Drive property. Clearly, both of these dates were more than one year before plaintiffs filed the instant suit in 2006.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of relators on the ground plaintiffs’ claims are perempted is reinstated.

*

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM. *

It is well settled that it is the insured’s obligation to read the policy when received, since the insured is deemed to know the policy contents. Isidore Newman School v. J. Everett Eaves, Inc., 09-2161 at p. 12 (La.7/6/10), 42 So.3d 352, 359; see also City Blueprint & Supply Co., Inc. v. Boggio, 08-1093 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/17/08), 3 So.3d 62. In the instant case, plaintiffs’ policies clearly revealed their flood limits were lower than their commercial policy limits and their properties’ value. Moreover, it is undisputed that a review of plaintiffs’ commercial policies would have revealed these policies excluded flood damage.

Under these circumstances, plaintiffs knew or should have known of their deficient coverage no later than 2003 on the Center Street property, and no later than 2004 on the Nancy Drive property. Clearly, both of these dates were more than one year before plaintiffs filed the instant suit in 2006.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of relators on the ground plaintiffs’ claims are perempted is reinstated.

*

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 So. 3d 968, 2010 La. LEXIS 1827, 2010 WL 3448503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seruntine-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-la-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack