BROADCASTS.com

b'

Policy only Applies to Risks Taken by Insurer\\n\\nPost 4699\\n\\nPlaintiffs in multiple consolidated actions appeal the Judgment granting\\n the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of defendant, The Burlington \\nInsurance Company ("TBIC") based upon a clear and unambiguous exclusion.\\n\\nIn Cameron Soule v. \\xa0Woodward Design + Build, LLC, et. al., Nos. \\n2022-CA-0352, 2022-CA-0353, 2022-CA-0354, 2022-CA-0355, 2022-CA-0356, \\nCourt of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (December 21, 2023) \\nLouisiana resolved the dispute.\\n\\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS\\n\\nProgram ("CCIP") policy or "Wrap-Up" policy from Houston Casualty \\nCompany ("HCC") for the insurance on the Project.\\n\\nRegarding insurance, Eagle\'s \\nSubcontract stated, in pertinent part, that Woodward "has arranged for \\nthe Project to be insured under a controlled insurance program (the \\n"CCIP" or "Wrap-Up")."\\n\\nIn connection with the accident, plaintiffs filed suit against various \\nparties and TBIC, Eagle\'s own commercial general liability ("CGL") \\ninsurer.\\n\\nTBIC denied coverage for Eagle, maintaining that its CGL policy \\ncontained a"Wrap-Up Exclusion" which precluded coverage to Eagle for all\\n claims arising from the Project. The Wrap-Up Exclusion provided, in \\npertinent part, that coverage is excluded in "[a]ll locations where you \\nperform or have performed work that is or was to be insured under a \\nconsolidated (wrap-up) insurance program as described below." (Emphasis \\nadded).\\n\\nOn April 24, 2017, the Administrator sent a letter advising Eagle that \\nit was not covered "under the General Liability Contractor Controlled \\nInsurance Program for the trade of Hoist Rental and Service - the \\nStandard Project."\\n\\nTBIC maintained that the CCIP policy was intended to cover Eagle under \\ntwo distinct provisions: 1) as a lessor of equipment under the above \\nmentioned "Additional Insured" endorsement; and 2) as an enrolled \\ncontractor, (for Eagle\'s work pursuant to the Subcontract to erect, \\ndismantle, and provide preventative maintenance for the hoist) under the\\n Wrap-Up endorsement. The latter endorsement provided that Woodward\'s \\n"enrolled contractors" are insured "only while performing duties related\\n to the project."\\n\\nInterpretation of Insurance Contracts\\n\\nAn insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be \\nconstrued using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set \\nforth in the Civil Code. The judicial responsibility in interpreting \\ninsurance contracts is to determine the parties\' common intent.\\n\\nAn insurance policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or a \\nstrained manner so as to enlarge or to restrict its provisions beyond \\nwhat is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so as to achieve an \\nabsurd conclusion.\\n\\nIf after applying the other general rules of construction an ambiguity \\nremains, the ambiguous contractual provision is to be construed against \\nthe insurer and in favor of coverage. Under this rule of strict \\nconstruction, equivocal provisions seeking to narrow an insurer\'s \\nobligation are strictly construed against the insurer.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nWoodward\'s Subcontract with Eagle specifically provides that Woodward \\nMoreover, the plain language of the Wrap-Up Exclusion stated\\xa0 that \\ncoverage for Eagle is excluded in "[a]ll locations where you perform or \\nhave performed work that is or was to be insured under a consolidated \\nAccordingly, the Wrap-Up \\nExclusion must be enforced as written.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nCourts are required to read the entire policy at issue and interpret the\\n policy as its wording relates to the facts of the incident that \\nresulted in bodily injury to the plaintiffs. The court did so and \\nignored the creative, yet unconvincing, arguments made by the \\nplaintiffs. The policy excluded the incident.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\n