Herbert P. Richard and Bridget Richard v. Metro Bingo of Lafayette

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-1304
consolidated with CW 05-293

HERBERT P. RICHARD
AND BRIDGET RICHARD

VERSUS

METRO BINGO OF LAFAYETTE, INC., ET AL.

************

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2004-0891,
HONORABLE DURWOOD W. CONQUE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN
JUDGE

************

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Michael G. Sullivan, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

Saunders, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

WRIT DENIED; JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.

Melvin A. Eiden
Rabalais, Hanna & Hebert
701 Robley Drive, Suite 210
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503
(337) 981-0309
Counsel for Defendants/Appellants:
Metro Bingo of Lafayette, Inc.
Western World Insurance Company

Robert M. Kallam
Jennifer A. Wells
Jonathan L. Woods
Preis, Kraft & Roy
Post Office Drawer 94-C
Lafayette, Louisiana 70509
(337) 237-6062
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Lafayette Athletic Association of the Deaf, Inc.
Alea London Limited

Allen R. Ingram
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 53233
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505
(337) 233-7092
Counsel for Plaintiffs:
Herbert P. Richard
Bridget Richard

SULLIVAN, Judge.

For the reasons discussed in the companion case in this consolidated matter,

Richard v. Metro Bingo of Lafayette, Inc., 05-293 (La.App. 3 Cir. __/__/06), __ So.2d

__, the trial court’s grant of the motion for summary judgment filed by LAAD and

Alea and its denial of the motion for summary judgment filed by Metro Bingo and

Western World are affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Metro Bingo and

Western World.

WRIT DENIED; JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.

NUMBER CW 05-0293 C/W
NUMBER CA 05-1304

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

HERBERT P. RICHARD AND BRIDGET RICHARD

VERSUS

METRO BINGO OF LAFAYETTE, ET AL.

SAUNDERS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

DISSENT

I respectfully disagree with the majority. I believe that the language “with the

respect to liability arising out of the . . . use . . .” is broader than the interpretation

given by the majority and cannot be limited to a four hour period as those things

which happen prior to or after the four hour period may give rise to liability. This is

clear as, the exclusionary language stating that “any occurrence which takes place

after you cease to be a tenant in that premises” does not relieve Metro Bingo of

liability as the tenancy does not end until 5:30 and the party injured at 1:15 was not

injured “after you cease to be a tenant in that premises[.]” Accordingly, the broad

language of liability “arising out of . . .” would apply, not the specific exclusionary

language, as the injured party went to play bingo and would not have been on the

premises otherwise.

Furthermore, moving to the second issue as to whether a defense is owed I note

the language that “whenever the pleadings against its insured disclose even a

possibility of liability under the policy[.]” Based upon this language, I believe that

coverage is owed as there is a very strong possibility of liability and, in fact, I contend

that liability is clear.