2021CW0170 Nonprecedential Writ granted Processed

Terry J. Leblanc v. Zaina & Tejan, Inc., Hill City Oil Co., Inc., Mammoon Khalil, Bahaaldin Khalil

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed May 11, 2021

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TERRY J. LEBLANC NO. 2021 CW 0170

VERSUS

ZAINA & TEJAN, INC.; HILL
CITY OIL CO., INC.; MAMOON
I. KHALILI, BAHAALDIN I. MAY 11, 2021
KHALIL

In Re: Seneca Specialty Insurance for
Company, applying
supervisory writs, 32nd Judicial District Court,
Parish of Terrebonne, No. 181407.

BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, AND RESTER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s January 14, 2021 judgment,
which denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant,
Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, is reversed. The insurance
policy issued by defendant, Seneca Specialty Insurance Company,
includes a Weapons Exclusion, which provides that the insurance
does not apply to bodily injury arising out of or resulting from
the possession or lethal but
use of a weapon,
including not

limited to firearms by any person. There is no factual dispute
herein that plaintiff, Terry J. LeBlanc, asserts his injuries
were caused when he was shot with a firearm. We find that
Seneca Specialty Insurance Company met its burden of proving
that the policy at issue unambiguously excludes coverage for the
damages alleged in this matter. See Fouquet v. Daiquiris &
Creams of Mandeville, L. L. C., 2010- 0233 ( La. 1st
App. Cir.
9/ 13/ 10), 49 So. 3d 44. Thus, we find that there is no coverage
under the policy issued by Seneca Specialty Insurance Company
for the damages alleged by plaintiff. Based upon this court' s

conclusion that the Weapons Exclusion excludes
unambiguously
coverage, we pretermit discussion of the assault and battery
exclusion the
and employer' s liability exclusion. Accordingly,
the motion for
summary judgment is granted, and all claims
against defendant, Seneca Specialty Insurance Company, are

dismissed with prejudice.

MRT
EW
CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Pau/ k DEPUTY CL RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT