BROADCASTS.com

b'

Innocent Wife Has No Right to Recover for Criminal Conduct of Husband  Causing Damage  

Public Policy of State Requires Exclusion of Criminal Conduct  On October 14, 2019-while the Safeway policy was in effect-Mr. Moon  backed the Vehicle into a police vehicle while attempting to flee from  the police (the "Incident"). In Kristen Moon v. Safeway Insurance  Company Of Louisiana, No. 2022-CA-0455, Court of Appeals of Louisiana,  Fourth Circuit (December 6, 2022).  

FACTUAL BACKGROUND  

Safeway issued an automobile liability policy to Ms. Moon covering a  vehicle that she personally owned (the "Vehicle"). Ms. Moon\'s husband,  Herbert Moon, was listed on the policy as a permissive user.  The  following day, the police informed Ms. Moon that her husband had been  arrested and that the Vehicle had been towed. Thereafter, Ms. Moon filed  a claim with Safeway for the property damages to the Vehicle that  occurred as a result of the Incident. Safeway denied Ms. Moon\'s claim  based on the criminal and intentional acts exclusions (the "Exclusions")  in its policy.  Following Safeway\'s denial of her claim, Ms. Moon sued Safeway. Ms. Moon  prayed for not only property damages, but also penalties for bad faith  refusal to pay her claim.  After answering the suit, Safeway filed a summary judgment motion based  on the Exclusions. Safeway supported its summary judgment motion with an  affidavit from its representative, Rhonda Marshall; and a copy of the  deposition of the investigating officer, Christopher Bassil. Attached to  Ms. Marshall\'s affidavit was a certified copy of Safeway\'s policy. The  criminal charges included aggravated criminal damage to property, a  violation of La. R.S. 14:55, for striking the police vehicle. 

DISCUSSION  Whether an insurance policy provides for-or precludes-coverage as a  matter of law is an issue that can be resolved within the framework of a  summary judgment motion. In analyzing insurance policies, the following  elementary legal principles apply:  An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be  construed by using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set  forth in the Civil Code.[3]  THE POLICY  The Safeway policy language at issue provides that under Part  IV-Physical Damages-the policy does not apply to  criminal or  intentional acts.  The Exclusions, as applied are clear and unambiguous; and the  applicability of the Exclusions to the facts on which the suit is based -  the Incident - is not in dispute. Rather, Ms. Moon\'s contention is that  the Exclusions are contrary to public policy and, for that reason,  should not be enforced because she was innocent and had nothing to do  with the criminal conduct of Mr. Moon.