A high-stakes legal battle over insurance coverage for a construction accident has taken a significant turn. On August 15, 2024, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit in Louisiana granted a writ in part and reversed a lower court's decision, favoring Houston Casualty Company against multiple plaintiffs.
The complaint was filed by Cameron Soule and other plaintiffs on March 28, 2024, at the Civil District Court in Orleans Parish. The defendants include Woodward Design + Build, LLC and Houston Casualty Company. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for injuries sustained during an accident at a construction project where Woodward served as the general contractor and Eagle Access, LLC acted as a subcontractor.
According to court documents, Woodward was required to obtain a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy from Houston to cover its subcontractors. However, disputes arose regarding whether Eagle was properly enrolled under this policy. The Supreme Court previously ruled that Eagle did not comply with the enrollment requirements stipulated by Houston's policy. This led to cross motions for partial summary judgment between Woodward and Houston in 2020, with both parties seeking clarity on whether Eagle was insured under the CGL policy.
In their amended petition filed on March 7, 2022, the plaintiffs argued that Eagle should be considered an "additional insured" under a specific endorsement provision of the CGL policy. They claimed that terms like "loss payee" and "additional insured" were interchangeable and thus sought coverage for Eagle under these designations. In response, Houston filed another motion for summary judgment or alternatively an exception of res judicata, arguing that the Supreme Court had already ruled on this matter in Soule v. Woodward Design + Build, LLCS (2021).
The trial court initially denied Houston's motion for summary judgment and its exception of res judicata. However, upon review, the Court of Appeal found that all elements required to sustain an exception of res judicata were met: a valid and final judgment existed; the parties involved were the same; and the causes of action asserted in both suits arose from the same transaction or occurrence.
The appellate court concluded that Soule I is indeed a valid and final judgment declaring that Houston’s CGL policy does not provide coverage for personal injury claims against Eagle resulting from the construction project. Consequently, they reversed the trial court’s decision denying Houston’s exception of res judicata but denied all other aspects of Houston's writ as moot.
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase presided over this case along with Judges Dale N Atkins and Nakisha Ervin-Knott under Case ID NO: 2018-00935 C\W 2018-01020 et al.