Keith Regan v. Tamikia Jones, Peerliss Property Management and Development, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

KEITH REGAN

VERSUS

TAMIKIA JONES, JE ISS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT &
DEVELOPMENT9 LLCq ABC INSURANCE COMPANY &
XVZ INSURANCE COMPANY

I. samil
Judgment Rendered.

On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Trial Court, Docket Number C717995, Div./Sec. 32

Honorable William Jorden, Judge Presiding

Brian L. McCullough Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Peyton P. Murphy Keith Regan

Troy D. Morain
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

J. Murphy Delaune Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Timothy E. Pujol Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees,
Barbara Lane Irwin Tamikia Jones and Peerliss Property
Ashley D. Tadda Management & Development, LLC
Landyn A. Gautreau
Jody M. Gaillard
Gonzales, Louisiana

BEFORE: PENZATO, LANIER, AND FIELDS, JJ.

PENZATO, J.

Plaintiff, Keith Regan, seeks reversal of the judgment that granted a motion

for summary judgment filed by defendant, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,

and dismissed State Farm ftom Regan' s suit with prejudice. After de novo review,

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 30, 2021, Keith Regan and his fianc6e, Tricia T. Gendron,

collectively, as " RESIDENNT[ J" entered a rental lease contract with " Peerliss

Properties," as landlord. The lease concerned a two- story townhome owned by

Tamikia Jones, who signed the lease on behalf of Peerliss Properties. The lease was

for a six-month term, from April 1, 2021 to October 31, 2021, and automatically

renewed thereafter, unless either party notified the other of the intent to terminate.

Pursuant to the lease, Regan and Gendron paid $ 1, 100. 00 per month in rent to

Peerliss Properties.

Regan and Gendron continued to reside in the townhome through March 5,

2022. On that date, Regan fell from the top of the townhome' s interior stairs,

sustaining significant injuries. Regan filed suit for personal injuries on April 19,

2022, naming Jones and Peerliss Property Management and Development, LLC

Peerliss") as defendants, along with their fictitious insurers. Regan alleged that he

fell due to the " defective and dangerous nature" of the steps, which were

constructed and/ or maintained in a defective and hazardous fashion" in

contravention of all applicable building and pertinent codes and standards. Regan

asserted that the stairs posed an " immediate and unreasonable danger" to users.

State Farm voluntarily substituted itself in the litigation in place of Jones' s

named fictitious insurer. In its answer to the petition, State Farm admitted that it

issued a policy of insurance to Jones, which was in effect on March 5, 2022, and

W

insured the townhome as the " residencepremises." Additionally, State Farm quoted

excerpts from the policy, including two pertinent exclusions.

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment in June 2024, asserting that

no coverage existed for Regan' s injuries and no duty to defend its insured, Jones,

was owed. State Farm supported its motion with a certified copy of the homeowner' s

policy issued to Jones for the subject townhome, effective June 1, 2021 to June 1,

2022; Regan' s deposition; and the lease authenticated by Regan and attached to his

deposition. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(4)( a). State Farm contended that the policy' s

business pursuits exclusion and the rental exclusion barred coverage. Specifically,

these exclusions stated that personal liability coverage did not apply to:

b. bodily injury ... arising out of business pursuits of any insured, except as
provided in item c. below. This exclusion does not apply to activities that
are ordinarily incident to non -business pursuits;

c. bodily injury ... arising out of the rental of any part of the premises by any
insured. This exclusion does not apply:

4) to activities that are ordinarily incident to non -business pursuits[.']

The policy pertinently, defines " business" as:

any full-time or part-time activity, trade, profession, employment, or
occupation or a commercial, mercantile, or industrial undertaking of an
economic nature. It does not matter whether it is continuous or regular,
is a secondary or supplemental source of income, or is an insured' s
principal means of livelihood. Profit and profit motive are irrelevant.

State Farm argued that, pursuant to these exclusions, coverage was barred,

because Jones undisputedly rented the townhome to Regan and Gendron for their

exclusive use and collected $ 1, 100.00 per month in rent through her property

management business, Peerliss.

During his deposition, Regan testified that the interior staircase in the

townhome led to the second floor, where his bedroom and a bathroom were located.

The rental exclusion contains additional exceptions to its application, which the parties do not
contend apply here, such as when the residence premises is rented for up to 30 nights in the 12 -
month period prior to the date of the loss or is rented in part by one or two full-time roomers or
boarders.

3

At 2: 00 a. m., Regan began to walk up the stairs to his desk. As Regan approached

the second floor, his foot kicked the top edge of the top step, which he alleged was

1. 5 inches " out of code." Regan fell backwards, down the stairs, and to the landing,

where he struck his head on a. comer post. He identified the step' s 1. 5 -inch deviation

from code as the condition that caused his fall and confirmed he did not notice any

defects, chips, or cracks in the wooden stairs.

Jones and Peerliss filed an opposition to State Farm' s motion and relied on

Jones' s affidavit, which pertinently stated that Jones lived in the townhome from

September 2018 through February 2021 and again following Regan' s accident.

Jones and Peerliss asserted that the non -business pursuits exception to both

exclusions applied because the townhome was and is primarily used as Jones' s

residence and her alleged Failure to repair the stairs was an activity ordinarily

incident to a non -business pursuit. Jones and Peerliss relied on Blue Ridge Ins. Co.

v. Newman, 453 So. 2d 554, 556 ( La. 1984), wherein the supreme court held that the

maintenance of a tree, which fell and damaged a neighbor' s property, was not

directly related to the insured' s rental of the insured home; thus, the non -business

pursuits exception to the business pursuits exclusion applied.

Regan adopted Jones and Peerliss' s opposition in response to State Farm' s

motion but did not adopt Jones' s affidavit in accordance with La. C. C. P. art.

966( A)(4)( b) and offered no evidence in opposition to the motion for summary

judgment. Regan also asserted that genuine issues of material fact remained

regarding the circumstances under which the State Farm agent marketed and sold an

insurance policy with a rental exclusion to Jones, who was engaged in the rental of

residential property.

The trial court granted State Farm' s motion for summary judgment at the

conclusion of a contradictory hearing, finding the townhome was rental property,

that no genuine issues of material fact remained, and that the policy exclusions

11

precluded coverage. A judgment in accordance with this ruling was signed on July

28, 2025, dismissing State Farm with prejudice.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

This appeal by Regan followed. Jones and Peerliss did not appeal the July 28,

2025 judgment but filed a brief with this court in support of Regan' s position. In his

first assignment of error, Regan asserts the trial court erred by distinguishing Blue

Ridge, which he maintains is " directly on point[.]" In his second assignment of error,

Regan asserts the trial court erred by failing to find genuine issues of material fact

remain concerning the formation and subsequent renewals of the insurance policy,

which State Farm purportedly failed to resolve.

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

After an opportunity fbr adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment

shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there

is no genuine issue of material fact, and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)( 3). Using this criteria, appellate courts review

summary judgments de novo. Broden v. Priority Management Group, L.L. C., 2025-

01651 ( La. 2/ 12/ 26), 427 So. 3d 726, 728 n. 1. Summary judgment declaring a lack

of coverage under an insurance policy may be rendered only ifthere is no reasonable

interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by

the evidence supporting the motion, under which coverage could be afforded.

Intelligent Mortgage & Consulting Services LLC v. Arbor Lending Group, L.L. C.,

2022- 1252 ( La. App. I Cir. 8/ 1/ 23), 371 So. 3d 554, 559, writ denied, 2023- 01210

La. 11/ 15/ 23), 373 So. 3d 80.

An insurance policy is a conventional obligation that constitutes the law

between the insured and the insurer, and the agreement governs the nature of their

relationship. La. C. C. art. 1983. If the insurance policy' s language clearly expresses

the parties' intent and does riot violate a statute or public policy, the policy must be

5

enforced as written. 2 Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc.,

2006- 1827 ( La. 5/ 22/ 07), 958 So.,2d 634, 638.

Although liability insurance policies should be interpreted to effect, rather

than to deny coverage, it is well- settled that, unless a statute or public policy dictates
otherwise, insurers may limit liability and impose such reasonable conditions or

limitations upon their insureds. In these circumstances, unambiguous provisions

limiting liability must be given effect. Supreme Services, 958 So. 2d at 638- 39. The

business pursuits exclusion in a homeowner' s policy is intended to exclude risks that

should be covered under different policies. Stills v. Mims, 42, 799 ( La. App. 2 Cir.

12/ 5/ 07), 973 So. 2d 118, 121. For example, the risks associated with a rental

dwelling would typically be insured by rental property insurance. Stills, 973 So.2d
at 121.

As insurer and mover, State Farm had the burden of making a prima facie

showing that no genuine issues of material fact remained as to the applicability of

the coverage exclusions. See Robinson a Williams, 2024- 0201 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

12/ 11/ 24), 404 So. 3d 821, 827 and Supreme Services, 958 So. 2d at 639.

Additionally, if the uncontroverted facts preclude the possibility of a duty to

indemnify, State Farm' s duty to defend Jones ceases and the duty to indemnify is

negated. See Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co., 2013- 0756 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

3/ 24/ 14), 146 So. 3d 210, 211). Only if State Farm satisfied its initial burden did the

burden shift to Regan to present evidence demonstrating a material factual issue

remained. Robinson, 404 So. 3d at 827.

Blue Ridge is Distinguishable

Regan asserts the policy language, facts, and circumstances of his fall are

directly analogous" to the supreme court' s analysis and reasoning in Blue Ridge,

Z There is no contention that the business pursuits exclusion and/ or the rental exclusion in State
Farm' s policy violate a statute or public policy.

453 So. 2d 554. There, the plaintiffs home was damaged by a tree growing on

adjoining property owned by Robert Newman. The evidence established that, before
However, the
the tree fell, Newman temporarily rented his home to a friend.

property was vacant from May 1980 through July 30, 1980, when the tree fell.
Blue
During the time of vacancy, Newman made no effort to rent the property.

Ridge, 453 So. 2d at 555- 556.

The Blue Ridge cour.-found the lower courts erred by dismissing the claims

against Newman' s homeowner' s insurer after it determined the business pursuits

policy exclusion did not bar coverage. Blue Ridge, 453 So. 2d at 554. The supreme

court pertinently noted that, although the tree was on rental property, it was not

directly related to the renting of Newman' s home and was not a necessary incident

of the business of renting property. The court explained,

Although the presence of the tree might have made the property more
attractive, it is unlikely that Newman' s ability to rent the house was
substantially affected by the presence of the tree. Neither the presence
of the tree nor its eventual fall was in any way related to any business
character of the property.

Blue Ridge, 453 So. 2d at 556- 57.

Regan argues on appeal. that the stairs in the townhome exist because there are

upstairs living spaces and, like the tree in Blue Ridge, neither the presence of the

defective step nor Regan' s fall was in any way related to the business character of

the property. Instead, Regan fell while using the insured property as a residence.

This argument and Regan' s reliance on Blue Ridge are unpersuasive.

We agree with the trial court that the pertinent facts in Blue Ridge are

distinguishable from those presented here. Unlike a tree, the interior stairs are an

integral part of the two- story townhome, and Regan' s use of the stairs was directly

related to his rental of the townhome. He could not access the rented upstairs living

spaces without using the stairs. Similarly, Jones could not have rented the entirety

of the two- story townhome without the interior stairs. Her ability to rent the

h

townhome was substantially affected by the presence of and Regan' s use of the

stairs.

Regan' s use of the residence premises as a residence is not material to the

applicability of the policy exclusion. Instead, it is pertinent that Regan' s bodily

injury3 arose out of the insured' s business pursuits. Regan confirmed that Jones

signed the lease on behalf of " Peerliss Properties" and that he paid $ 1, 100. 00

In brief, Jones admits that " Peerliss
monthly rent to " Peerliss Properties."

Properties" entered the lease as her " property manager[.]" Thus, the rental of the

residence premises satisfies the policy definition of business.

Additionally, the policy exclusions at issue bar coverage for bodily injury

arising out of the insured' s business pursuits and the rental of any part of the

premises. The phrase " arising out of implies an element of causality, though not

necessarily the proximate cause. There must be some causality between the business

pursuit or rental of property and the bodily injury or property damage for the

exclusion to apply. Stills, 973 So. 2d at 122. Regan sustained bodily injuries while

climbing the stairs at 2: 00 a.m. solely because Jones rented the entire two-story

townhome to Regan and Crendron. Causality is easily satisfied here. Finally, unlike

the homeowner in Blue Ridge, Jones was renting the residence premises at the time

Regan, the lessee, was injured and had been for nearly a year before this incident.

After de novo review, we find State Farm satisfied its burden of proving that

coverage is barred by the policy' s business pursuits exclusion and rental exclusion;

therefore, the duty to indemnity is negated and no duty to defend is owed. See

Maldonado, 146 So. 3d at 219. The burden thereafter shifted to Regan, who failed

to present evidence to demonstrate a material factual issue remains as to the

applicability of these coverage exclusions. See Robinson, 404 So.3d at 827.

3 The policy' s definition of "bodily injury" includes physical injury to a person.

No Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding Policy Formation, Renewals

Regan poses numerous questions about Jones' s purchase of the State Farm

homeowner' s policy, attempting to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of

material fact regarding whether Jones purchased or was sold the wrong insurance

product. Regan argues that State Farm failed to offer the affidavit of its agent to

resolve these questions.

However, the burden was on Regan to produce evidentiary support for the

genuine issues of material fact, which he maintains defeat State Farm' s motion for

summary judgment. See La. C. C. P. art. 966; see also Robinson, 404 So. 3d at 827

and 1143 Four Point Road, LLC v. South. Louisiana Electric Cooperative

Association, 2025- 1223 ( La. App. I Cir. 6/ 18/ 26), 2026 AT 1765205, * 6

unpublished). Regan offered no factual support for the speculative issues he raises.

Speculation and conjecture will. not defeat a well -supported motion for summary

judgment. 1143 Four Point Road, 2026 WL 1765205 at * 6 ( finding that posing

questions but failing to offer evidentiary support was insufficient to defeat summary

judgment). Thus, Regan' s second assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the July 28, 2025 judgment is affirmed. All costs

of this appeal are assessed against appellant, Keith Regan.
1

Z