ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Local Law Blogs Blogs -> Louisiana Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Local Law Blogs

: Louisiana Law Blog

Lack of Final Determination Precludes Insurance Coverage Summary Judgment

ADVERTISEMENTS

by Todd A. Rossi

Louisiana courts preclude summary judgments on insurance coverage matters until the underlying litigation is resolved and the factual basis for the insured’s liability is determined. For example, in Vidrine v. Constructors, Inc., 953 So.2d 193 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2007), welders, pipe fitters and their helpers brought action against the employer and plant owner to recover for asbestos exposure allegedly arising during a plant renovation. One of the insurers filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting there was no coverage based on an exclusionary provision for bodily injury caused or aggravated "by the conditions of your employment." Under that provision, the employee’s last day of last exposure had to occur during the policy period. The insurer based its summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ petition and discovery responses that alleged asbestos exposure beyond the last day of the policy period.

While the trial court granted the insurer’s summary judgment, the Appellate Court reversed, recognizing thatdespite Constructors failure to show the alleged injury occurred within the policy period, the insurer’s pleadings did not foreclose a factual finding that one or several plaintiffs was not injured while still working for Constructors and thereby covered under the insurance policy. The court stated that it was premature to rule on Eagle’s obligation to indemnify until there was a final determination of if and when the asbestos exposure occurred and if any post-period exposure caused their injuries. Accordingly, the Vidrine court recognized that any coverage determination, prior to a factual finding related to the underlying tort suit on which coverage was disputed, was premature. Vidrine may make summary judgment in favor of the insurer less likely, and provides insureds with a legal basis to maintain an action for coverage pending the final outcome of the underlying tort suit.

Full post as published by Louisiana Law Blog on October 25, 2007 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 10:21:31)