Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 559 So. 2d 146 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990).
Cited by
- Frost v. David 673 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
- Guidroz v. Lewis 626 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
- Norris v. Guthrie 618 So. 2d 893 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Morrison on Behalf of Morrison v. Miller 452 So. 2d 390
Opinion text
WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY: The trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Nautilus Insurance Company. There is no serious dispute of fact that relator’s insured, Mako’s bar, is engaged in the business of selling and serving alcoholic beverages. Opposing argument notwithstanding, any liability of Mako’s in the instant suit must necessarily stem from the fact that Mako’s is in the business of selling and serving alcohol. Exclusion (h) of relator’s policy issued to Mako’s excludes from coverage damages for which Mako’s is held liable as an organization engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, or serving alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding this language ambiguous and in failing to grant relator’s motion for summary judgment. See Morrison v. Miller, 452 So.2d 390 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984). IT IS ORDERED that the trial court’s judgment denying relator’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby reversed. All actions against relator are hereby dismissed with prejudice.