Paul Thomas White and Kim Elizabeth White Versus Frank Caracci and Rebecca Caracci and Abc Insurance Company

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana
__________

No. 26-CA-38
________________

PAUL THOMAS WHITE AND KIM ELIZABETH WHITE

versus

FRANK CARACCI AND REBECCA CARACCI AND ABC INSURANCE COMPANY

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 854-878, DIVISION "A"
HONORABLE RAYMOND S. STEIB, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

September 23, 2026

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel

AFFIRMED

JJM
JGG
TSM

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
PAUL T. WHITE AND KIM E. WHITE
In Proper Person

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
CENTAURI NATIONAL INSURANCE
Travis L. Garrison
Ryan E. Bergeron

MOLAISON, J.

Appellants/plaintiffs, Paul White and Kim White, seek review of the trial

court’s ruling that granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Centauri

National Insurance Company. We affirm for the following reasons.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 4, 2024, Paul White and Kim White filed a petition for damages at

the 24th Judicial District Court, alleging various injuries following an incident on

October 6, 2023, where the Whites and their two pets were attacked by Frank and

Rebecca Caracci’s dog during a neighborhood walk in Metairie. On October 10,

2024, the Whites amended their petition to name Centauri National Insurance

Company (“Centauri”) as the issuer of the Caraccis’ homeowner’s insurance policy

that was in effect at the time of the incident. Centauri answered the Whites’

petition on December 27, 2024, and raised several affirmative defenses. While

acknowledging that it had issued a homeowner’s policy for the Caraccis that was in

effect on October 6, 2023, Centauri argued that the Animal Liability Endorsement

in that policy excluded liability and medical payments or bodily injury or property

damage caused by “Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixed breeds.” Centauri concluded that

because the Caraccis’ dog, Daisy, was a Pit Bull Mix, the policy did not provide

insurance coverage for the Caraccis related to the October 6, 2023 incident.

On September 10, 2025, Centauri filed a motion for summary judgment on

the issue of the Animal Liability Endorsement exclusion in the Caraccis’ policy. A

1313 Affidavit of Service filed in the record shows that the Whites were served on

September 19, 2025, with notice of the November 19, 2025 summary judgment

hearing date. The Whites did not file an opposition to Centauri’s motion for

summary judgment but verbally requested a continuance on November 18, 2025,

which the trial court denied on November 19, 2025. The trial court granted

26-CA-38 1

Centauri’s motion for summary judgment following a hearing on November 19,

2025. This appeal followed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court erred in granting Centauri’s motion for summary judgment

when genuine issues of material fact remained.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

We first note that the fact that the Whites did not file an opposition to the

motion for summary judgment is not necessarily fatal to their claim. Even without

the Whites’ opposition, Centauri retained the burden of establishing that there are

no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a

matter of law. Ulfers Dev., LLC v. A & C Holdings LLC, 22-268 (La. App. 5 Cir.

3/29/23), 360 So.3d 105, 111. However, to the extent that the Whites now contest

certain aspects of Centauri’s motion for summary judgment, appellate courts

generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Uniform

Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3; Goines v. Cash Am., Inc. of Louisiana, 21-727

(La. App. 5 Cir. 10/5/22), 351 So.3d 714, 719.

Summary Judgment

After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary

judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents

show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3). If the mover will not

bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion

for summary judgment, the mover’s burden on the motion does not require him to

negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but

rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more

elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. La. C.C.P. art.

966(D)(1). The burden then shifts to the adverse party to produce factual support

26-CA-38 2

sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the

mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Factual inferences

reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party

opposing a motion for summary judgment, and all doubt must be resolved in the

opponent's favor. Willis v. Medders, 00-2507 (La. 12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1049, 1050

(per curiam). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate

courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court’s

determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Samaha v. Rau, 07-

1726 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 880, 882.

In its motion for summary judgment, Centauri did not dispute that it had

issued a Homeowners Policy (number NHE0011639) to the Caraccis that was

effective from September 25, 2023 through September 25, 2024, and included the

date of the alleged incident on October 6, 2023. Incorporated into the policy are

forms and endorsements that collectively omit coverage for damages caused by

animal attacks. Read together, in connection with policy coverages “E” and “F,”

the policy precludes personal liability and medical payments for occurrences

caused by “prohibited breeds of dogs,” specifically including “pit bulls” or a breed

created from a pit bull. Exhibit “C” of Centauri’s motion for summary judgment is

an affidavit of veterinarian Dr. Rene Baumer from the Metairie Small Animal

Hospital. Dr. Baumer certified the documentation of “Daisy Caraccis”

euthanization consent from October 6, 2023. The consent, signed by one of the

Caraccis, identified Daisy as a “Pitbull Mix” breed.

In their November 25, 2025 answer to the Whites’ amended petition that

named Centauri as the Caraccis’ insurer, the Caraccis did not deny the existence of

the policy and simply stated, “Paragraph I does not require a response.” The

Caraccis also did not oppose Centauri’s motion for summary judgment or in any

way dispute the terms of the policy exclusion at issue.

26-CA-38 3

As noted above, the appellants’ arguments, raised for the first time on

appeal, will not be considered. However, several of the issues regarding the

authenticity and applicability of the Caraccis’ Centauri policy are included in our

de novo review. The policy entered into evidence, without objection, was

accompanied by an affidavit signed by Rachel Keller, a Centauri representative,

who attested that policy number NHE0011639 was a true and exact copy of the

policy issued to the Caraccis that was effective from September 25, 2023 to

September 25, 2024. We conclude that Ms. Keller’s affidavit meets the personal

knowledge requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 967(A) and sufficiently authenticates

the Caraccis’ policy issued by Centauri.

Conclusion

After a de novo review of the record, we find that Centauri sufficiently

proved that its policy for the Caraccis excluded liability coverage for pit bull breed

animal attacks and also proved that Daisy was a pit bull breed. Once the motion

for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the

failure of the adverse party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute

mandates the granting of the motion. Babin v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 00-78 (La.

6/30/00), 764 So.2d 37, 40. In this case, neither the Whites nor the Caraccis

opposed Centauri’s motion for summary judgment and demonstrated that a

genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, we find that the district court

properly granted summary judgment in favor of Centauri.

Decree

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

26-CA-38 4

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 23, 2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-CA-38
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HON. RAYMOND S. STEIB, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
RYAN E. BERGERON (APPELLEE) TRAVIS L. GARRISON (APPELLEE) STEPHEN P. BRUNO (APPELLEE)
KIM ELIZABETH WHITE (APPELLANT)

MAILED
PAUL THOMAS WHITE (APPELLANT)
1301 HOMESTEAD AVENUE
METAIRIE, LA 70005