Moore et al v. LaSalle Corrections Inc et al

Filing 207

MEMORANDUM RULING re 194 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 1/13/2020. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
ERIE MOORE, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-01007

VERSUS

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

LaSALLE CORRECTIONS, INC.,
ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
RULING

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment on Insurance Policy
Exhaustion filed by Defendant the Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company
(“PESLIC”) [Doc. No. 194]. PESLIC contends that Plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain any direct
action claims against PESLIC on the grounds that the policy limits of the Retained Limit Policy
issued to Defendant LaSalle Management Company (“LaSalle”) have been exhausted, and, as
such, there is no coverage available for the claims of Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Therefore, PESLIC
seeks judgment as a matter of law dismissing Plaintiffs’ direct action claims against it, with
prejudice.
Plaintiffs have filed a Response to Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 205] stating
that they are unable to deny or admit any Uncontested Statement of Material Fact set forth by
PESLIC, that they cannot contest any issue of law presented by the Motion for Summary
Judgment, and that they are unable to oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits
based upon the contentions and proof presented by PESLIC.
I.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is a wrongful death and survival action arising out of the death of a prisoner while in

detention at Richwood Correctional Center (“Richwood”), a prison located in Monroe Louisiana.

According to the Third Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs [Doc. No. 140], Erie Moore, Sr., was
detained at Richwood Correctional Center and being held in a cell with another inmate, Vernon
White, on October 13, 2015. While in the cell, White and Moore were apparently involved in an
altercation in which Moore seriously injured White. It is alleged that Moore was beaten by guards
as they attempted to extract him from the cell after the altercation. White died later that evening.
Moore was taken to the hospital after the beating and died on November 14, 2015, while
in the hospital. Plaintiffs, the children and heirs of Mr. Moore, have filed suit against numerous
individuals and entities, including LaSalle; Richwood; Richwood’s Warden Ray Hanson and
Assistant Warden Aultman; and various other alleged employees of Richwood and LaSalle. They
assert various claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 and under Louisiana state
law. As to PESLIC, Plaintiffs have alleged that PESLIC issued policy number N1-A3-RL000007304 effective June 30, 2015, to June 30, 2016, and that the policy provides coverage for the liability
of Richwood, LaSalle, and their employees. [Id.]
II.

LAW AND ALYSIS
The fact that the motion is unopposed does not necessarily mean PESLIC should prevail

on the merits. “A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because there is no
opposition . . . The movant has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact and, unless he has done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any
response was filed.” Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing
Hibernia Nat'l Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir.
1985)). Failure to file an opposition and statement of contested material facts, however, requires
the Court to deem statements of uncontested material facts admitted for purposes of the motion.
2

Local Rule, LR 56.2.
A plaintiff’s right of direct action against a liability insurer is subject to “the terms and
limits of the policy.” LA. REV. STAT. § 22:1269. Plaintiffs have named PESLIC as a Defendant
in this lawsuit based on the allegation that the PESLIC Policy provides coverage for the damages
sought by Plaintiffs in connection with the death of Mr. Moore. However, according to the
undisputed material facts, PESLIC Policy’s $5,000,000 Excess Limit of Liability has previously
been exhausted by payments for “Ultimate Net Loss,” as that term is defined by the PESLIC
Policy. Thus, there is no coverage available under the Policy, and Plaintiffs are not entitled to
maintain a direct action against PESLIC.
The claims of Plaintiffs arise out of Erie Moore’s incarceration at a correctional facility.
These claims implicate the Policy’s Law Enforcement coverage extension under the Policy’s
General Liability Coverage Part. Otherwise, this loss would not be covered under any other
coverage part, as coverage for any liability arising out of law enforcement activities is otherwise
excluded by the Policy’s Exclusions applicable to all coverage parts.
The PESLIC Policy’s General Liability Coverage Part and Law Enforcement coverage
extension provide that PESLIC will indemnify an insured for its “Ultimate Net Loss.” [Doc. No.
194-3]. The definition of “Ultimate Net Loss” includes both judgments/settlements and defense
costs. [Id.] The Policy’s aggregate limits for the General Liability Coverage Part, including the
Law Enforcement coverage extension, are $5,000,000. [Id.]. The Policy makes clear that the
aggregate limits in the Policy’s Declarations are the most PESLIC will pay for “Ultimate Net
Loss.” [Id.].
Consistent with the Policy’s terms, PESLIC has previously indemnified LaSalle a total of

3

$5,000,000 for “Ultimate Net Loss” under the Policy’s General Liability Coverage Part.
PESLIC has indemnified LaSalle for settlements and defense costs in connection with six
different claims under Policy No. N1-A3-RL-0000073-04 at issue in this lawsuit, including some
defense costs in this lawsuit. [Doc. No. 194-4, Affidavit of Michael Duffy, Vice President of
Specialty Market Claims with Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., the claims administrator for
PESLIC].
Because the PESLIC has paid $5,000,000 to LaSalle for its “Ultimate Net Loss,” the
aggregate limits of the Policy’s General Liability Coverage Part have been exhausted.
Accordingly, there is no coverage available for the above-captioned lawsuit under the PESLIC
Policy, and Plaintiffs’ direct action claims against PESLIC must be dismissed, with prejudice.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, PESLIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 194]
is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ direct action claims against PESLIC are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.
MONROE, LOUISIANA this 13th day of January, 2020.

__________________________________________
TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4