Cameron Soule v. Woodward Design + Build, Llcs, Houston Casualty Company, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 11, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
CAMERON SOULE
VS.
WOODWARD DESIGN + BUILD, LLCS,
HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL.
No. 2021-CC-00322
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Houston Casualty Company - Applicant Defendant; Applying For
Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 2018-935,
Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2021-C-0015;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 11, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Griffin, J., recused.
JBM
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
05/11/2021 "See News Release 019 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/11/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2021-CC-00322
CAMERON SOULE
VS.
WOODWARD DESIGN + BUILD, LLCS, HOUSTON CASUALTY
COMPANY, ET AL.
On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
PER CURIAM*
Woodward Design + Build, LLC (“Woodward”) served as general contractor
on a condominium construction project. As required by the owner of the project,
Woodward obtained a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (“CCIP”) policy
from Houston Casualty Company (“HCC”) for the purpose of covering its
subcontractors.
The instant litigation arose when plaintiff was injured after an elevator hoist
fell at the construction site. The hoist was provided by Eagle Access, LLC (“Eagle”),
a subcontractor of Woodward.
As a result, plaintiff filed the instant suit against Woodward, HCC and Eagle.
Woodward and HCC filed cross-motions for summary judgment, seeking to
determine whether Eagle is an insured under HCC’s CCIP policy. The district court
granted Woodward’s motion and denied HCC’s motion, finding that Eagle is an
insured under the CCIP policy issued to Woodward by HCC.
HCC sought supervisory review of this ruling. The majority of the court of
appeal denied writs, with one judge dissenting and assigning reasons. HCC’s
application to this court followed.
* Griffin, J. recused.

The narrow issue presented for our review is whether Eagle was properly
enrolled as an insured under the HCC policy. Accordingly, a brief review of the facts
surrounding coverage is appropriate,
A requirement of the insurance policy Woodward obtained from HCC was that
Woodward contract with an approved provider to perform “Contractor Enrollment.”
Pursuant to this requirement, Woodward retained an approved provider, Wrap Up
Insurance Solutions, Inc. (“Wrap Up Administrator”). The Wrap Up Administrator
sent an email to Eagle specifically advising that insurance coverage was not
automatic and sent the required enrollment form to Eagle.
The Wrap Up Administrator followed up by sending a second email to Eagle
after it formally entered into the subcontract with Woodward. Eagle declined to
comply with the request, stating that Eagle would “not participate in paying any wrap
insurance premiums” as Eagle had its own insurance. Accordingly, the Wrap Up
Administrator advised Woodward that Eagle was unwilling to enroll. This
information was provided to Woodward’s senior project manager, who indicated he
did not see any reason to include Eagle because “[t]hey are an equipment supplier and
their only on site work is to erect and dismantle the man/material hoist.”
Subsequently, after commencing work on the project, Eagle sent an enrollment
form to the Wrap Up Administrator. The Wrap Up Administrator advised Woodward
of Eagle’s action and requested advice on how to proceed. The Woodward
representative replied that a decision had been made earlier to exclude Eagle from
coverage. Accordingly, on April 24, 2017, the Wrap Up Administrator sent a letter
advising Eagle that it was not covered “under the General Liability Contractor
Controlled Insurance Program for the trade of Hoist Rental and Service – the
Standard Project.” A copy of this letter was sent to Woodward. The accident forming
2

the basis of this litigation occurred approximately three months later on July 28,
2017.
In Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 2007-0054 (La. 5/22/07), 956 So.2d
583, 588–89, we set forth the following principles for interpreting insurance policies:
In analyzing insurance polices, certain elementary legal
principles apply. First and foremost is the rule that an
insurance policy is a contract between the parties and
should be construed using the general rules of
interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
According to those rules, the responsibility of the judiciary
in interpreting insurance contracts is to determine the
parties’ common intent. Courts begin their analysis of the
parties’ common intent by examining the words of the
insurance contract itself. In ascertaining the common
intent, words and phrases in an insurance policy are to be
construed using their plain, ordinary and generally
prevailing meaning, unless the words have acquired a
technical meaning, in which case the words must be
ascribed their technical meaning. [citations omitted].
The HCC policy provides the following definition of “enrolled contractor”:
“Enrolled Contractors” mean contractors who, prior to the
commencement of their work on the covered project,
have completed the appropriate enrollments documents
for the “covered project.” [emphasis added].
Although the policy does not define the term “appropriate enrollment
documents,” it requires the insured to contract with a lists of approved providers “to
perform Contractor Enrollment. . . .” Pursuant to that requirement, Woodward
contracted with the Wrap Up Administrator.
The Wrap Up Administrator prepared a Wrap Up Insurance Manual which
Woodward incorporated into its subcontracts. The manual defined an enrolled
contractor or subcontractor as follows:
Contractor(s), Subcontractor(s) and Subcontractors –Any
Tier who have been enrolled in the Wrap Up Program by
providing to the Wrap Up Administrator a completed and
signed Enrollment Form. Wrap Up enrollment is
3

considered complete when the Wrap Up Administer has
issued a certificate of insurance to the Enrolled Contractor.
The manual further provided that enrollment by the submission of an
enrollment form to the Wrap Up Administrator was required, providing:
To enroll in the program, the “Enrollment Form” must be
completely filled out and returned to the Wrap Up
Administrator within Ten (10) business days after
notification of contract award or no less than prior to your
mobilization on the Jobsite. This form is necessary to
provide coverage for the Contractor on the project.
The undisputed facts demonstrate that this procedure was not followed by
Eagle. As a result, the Wrap Up Administrator never issued a certificate of insurance
to Eagle and instead sent a letter to Eagle, with a copy to Woodward, advising Eagle
it was not covered “under the General Liability Contractor Controlled Insurance
Program for the trade of Hoist Rental and Service – the Standard Project.”
Under these circumstances, we find the district court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Woodward and denying HCC’s motion. That judgment must be
reversed.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court
is reversed. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Houston Casualty
Company is granted, finding that Eagle Access, LLC/Division Management, LLC is
not an insured under the Contractor Controlled Insurance Program policy issued by
Houston Casualty Company.

4