Preview:

Editor's note: opinion released April 28, 2000

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 00-C-0587 PATRICIA RAWLS PAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TUTRIX OF HER MINOR CHILD, CONSTANCE TIFFANY PAXTON VERSUS WANDA FAYE SANDERSON, ET AL. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Ouachita
PER CURIAM* Writ granted. The question presented by this application is whether the motor vehicle exclusion in defendant's homeowner's insurance policy, when read in conjunction with the definition of the term "motor vehicle," is ambiguous when applied to the particular facts at issue. The court of appeal, relying on this court's decision in Gedward v. Sonnier, 98-1688 (La. 3/2/99), 728 So.2d 1265, found the policy ambiguous in this regard and reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We now reverse this decision and remand the case to the court of appeal for further proceedings. In Gedward, this court found an ambiguity existed in defendant's homeowner's policy because an insured "could have reasonably concluded from reading both the entire definition of `motor vehicle' and the exclusion that the exclusion only applies to recreational vehicles owned by him." Id. at 1269. Because defendant in that case did not own the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) involved in the accident, this court interpreted the ambiguity in favor of the insured and held that the policy did not exclude coverage for plaintiff's injuries if defendant was subsequently found negligent.1

*

Marcus, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2,

Download 2000-C-0587 PATRICIA RAWLS PAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TUTRIX OF HER MINOR CHILD

Louisiana Law