E S & H, Inc. Versus Brian Triche and Bernard Triche, Jr.

E S & H, INC. NO. 25-C-401

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN TRICHE AND BERNARD TRICHE, JR. COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 861-944, DIVISION "J"
HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER, JUDGE PRESIDING

September 24, 2025

JUDE G. GRAVOIS
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT DENIED
JGG
MEJ
SUS

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR,
E S & H, INC.
F. Forrester Willoz, IV

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT,
BRIAN TRICHE AND BERNARD TRICHE, JR.
Kyle M. Wiedemann
Edward J. Womac, Jr.
Douglas J. Womac, Jr.

GRAVOIS, J.

Relator/defendant, E S & H, Inc., seeks this Court’s supervisory review of

the trial court’s July 7, 2025 judgment which denied its Motion to Strike Paragraph

VII of respondents/plaintiffs, Brian Triche and Bernard Triche, Jr.’s, Petition for

Damages, in this motor vehicle accident case. For the following reasons, we deny

the writ application.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

By way of background, on February 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Petition for

Damages against relator (E S & H), Earl Maxwell, and State Farm Mutual

Automobile Insurance Company, for damages allegedly arising out of a motor

vehicle accident which occurred on February 22, 2024. In Paragraph VII of the

petition, plaintiffs alleged that at the time of the accident, Zurich American

Insurance Company provided a policy of insurance on the vehicle owned by E S &

H and operated by Mr. Maxwell, providing coverage for the loss sued upon in the

petition.1 E S & H seeks to strike Paragraph VII of the petition based on La. R.S.

22:1269(B)(4) which provides, in pertinent part:

(4)(a) An insurer shall not be included in the caption of any action
brought against the insurer pursuant to this Section. The action
shall instead be captioned only against the insured defendant or
other noninsurance defendants.

(b) A court shall not disclose the existence of insurance coverage to
the jury or mention such coverage in the jury’s presence unless
required by Code of Evidence Article 411.
***

1
Specifically, Paragraph VII of plaintiffs’ Petition for Damages reads as follows:
Upon information and belief, it is alleged that at all times material hereto,
including but not limited to the date of the subject accident, ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY provided a policy of automobile liability
insurance on the vehicle owned by E S & H, INC., and operated by EARL
MAXWELL, and said policy provided coverage for the type of loss sued upon
herein.

25-C-401 1

E S & H argues that if Paragraph VII is not struck from the petition, the jury will

be able to determine the existence of insurance coverage in this case since at some

point during the trial, the jury may be provided access to the petition. E S & H

also argues that allowing Paragraph VII to remain in the petition opens the door to

plaintiffs’ offering evidence of defendants’ insurance coverage during the liability

phase of the trial.

DISCUSSION

Upon review, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment which denied the

Motion to Strike. As written, La. R.S. 22:1269(B)(4)(a) is clear that an insurer

shall not be included in the caption of the action. It is undisputed that in the

present case, the insurer is not included in the caption of the action. Further, La.

R.S. 22:1269(B)(4)(b) does not specifically prohibit an insurer from being named

in the body of the petition. It only provides that “[t]he court shall not disclose the

existence of insurance coverage to the jury or mention such coverage in the jury’s

presence unless required by Code of Evidence Article 411.”

In light of the foregoing, we cannot find that the trial court erred in denying

the Motion to Strike.2

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is denied.

WRIT DENIED

2
In any event, we note that E S & H is not prohibited from filing a pretrial motion in
limine to enforce the provisions of La. R.S. 22:1269(B)(4)(b), should such a motion be deemed
necessary.

25-C-401 2

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

25-C-401
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE STEPHEN C. GREFER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
DOUGLAS J. WOMAC, JR. (RESPONDENT) KYLE M. WIEDEMANN (RESPONDENT)

MAILED
EDWARD J. WOMAC, JR. (RESPONDENT) F. FORRESTER WILLOZ, IV (RELATOR)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW
3501 CANAL STREET 3900 NORTH CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119 SUITE 1060
METAIRIE, LA 70002