Amy Ronquille Reid VS Sweetwater Campground Ranch & Stables, L.L.C. and ABC Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0502 AMY RONQUILLE REID VERSUS SWEETWATER CAMPGROUND RANCH STABLES C L AND SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered OCT 2 9 2010 On Appeal from the Twenty Judicial District Court First In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No 2006 3510 Honorable Brenda Bedsole Ricks Judge Presiding Richard A Weigand New Orleans Louisiana Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Amy Ronquille Reid Michael S Futrell Counsel for DefendantAppellee Scottsdale Insurance Company Metairie Louisiana Kelly Y Scott Catherine S Gierling Counsel for defendant Jennifer W Moroux Riding Stables L C Sweetwater Campground Ranch BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON 33 McCLENDON J In this personal injury case the plaintiff appeals a trial court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurer and dismissing her claims against the insurer based on a lack of coverage For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 20 2006 the plaintiff Amy Ronquille Reid filed a petition for damages against Sweetwater Campground Ranch Sweetwater and ABC Insurance Company ABC Stables Scottsdale C L Insurance Company Scottsdale subsequently replaced ABC as the liability insurer for Sweetwater Plaintiff asserted that while participating in equine activities at Sweetwater she suffered severe injuries due to Sweetwater negligence s Thereafter the defendants answered generally denying the allegations of s plaintiff petition Each defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory immunity from plaintiff claims s Following a hearing and after issuing reasons for judgment the trial court signed its judgment on June 23 2009 granting in part and denying in part the motions for summary judgment The trial court granted the motions in part to the extent that Sweetwater qualified as a farm animal activity sponsor and was thus afforded the immunity or limitation of liability provided by statute absent a showing by the plaintiff that an exception to such immunity or limitation of liability applied The trial court denied the defendants motions for summary judgment to the extent that it found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of the exceptions argued by the plaintiff Thereafter on July 23 2009 Scottsdale filed a second motion for summary judgment asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the animal and stable liability exclusions found in Sweetwater general s The defendants motions were based on LSA R 9 S 2795 1 From this judgment Sweetwater sought review by this court but its application for supervisory writs was denied on November 9 2009 See Reid v Sweetwater Campground Ranch Stables LLC 09 1346 La 1 Cir 11 unpublished writ action App 09 9 2 liability policy with Scottsdale The motion was heard on November 16 2009 at the conclusion of which the trial court granted Scottsdale motion s Judgment was signed on December 7 2009 finding no coverage under the insurance policy and dismissing all of plaintiff claims against Scottsdale with prejudice s The court additionally found no just reason for delay and to avoid multiple trials designated the judgment as final Thereafter plaintiff requested written reasons for judgment which were issued on December 11 2009 Plaintiff appealed DISCUSSION On appeal summary judgments are reviewed de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court consideration of whether summary judgment s is appropriate Cir Duplantis v Dillard Dept Store 02 0852 p 5 La 1 s App 03 9 5 849 So 675 679 writ denied 03 1620 La 10 855 2d 03 2d So 350 An appellate court thus asks the same questions as does the trial court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Brumfield v Gafford 99 1712 p 3 La 1 App Cir 9 768 So 223 225 The summary judgment procedure is favored 00 22 2d and is designed to secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of every action LSAC art 966A P C 2 A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full scale trial when there is no genuine factual dispute The motion should be granted only if the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Brumfield 99 1712 at pp 34 768 2d So at 225 see LSA C art 96613 P The burden of proof is on the movant However if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at the trial of the matter the movant is not required to negate all essential elements of the adverse party claim but rather to point out s an absence of factual support for one or more essential elements Thereafter if the adverse party fails to provide factual evidence sufficient to establish that he 3 will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial there is no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is properly granted LSAC P C art 966C 2 Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality whether a particular fact in dispute is material for summary judgment purposes can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case Guardia v Lakeview Regional Medical Ctr 081369 p 4 La 1 Cir 5 13 App 09 8 3d So 625 628 An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed employing the general rules of interpretation of contracts Blackburn v National Union Fire Ins Co of Pittsburgh 002668 pp 5 6 La 4 01 3 784 So 637 641 2d The judicial responsibility in interpreting insurance contracts is to determine the parties common intent LSA C art 2045 Huggins v Gerry Lane Enterprises Inc 062816 062843 p 3 La 07 22 5 957 So 127 129 In ascertaining the common intent of the insured 2d and insurer courts begin their analysis with a review of the words in the insurance contract Words in an insurance contract must be ascribed their generally prevailing meaning unless the words have acquired a technical meaning in which case the words must be ascribed their technical meaning See LSAC art 2047 Succession of Fannaly v Lafayette Ins Co 01 C 1144 01 1343 01 1355 01 1360 p 3 La 1 805 So 1134 1137 02 15 2d Moreover an insurance contract is construed as a whole and each provision in the contract must be interpreted in light of the other provisions One provision of the contract should not be construed separately at the expense of disregarding other provisions See LSAC art 2050 Peterson v Schimek C 98 1712 p 5 La 3 729 So 1024 1029 99 2 2d When the words of an insurance contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences courts must enforce the contract as written See LSAC art 2046 C Insurance policies are meant to effect coverage therefore the contract is additionally interpreted to effect coverage where possible M See Yount v Maisano 627 2d So 148 151 La 1993 However if an ambiguity remains after applying the general rules of contractual interpretation to an insurance contract the ambiguous contractual provision is construed against the insurer who furnished the contract text and in favor of the insured See LSA C art 2056 s Insurers have the right to limit coverage in any manner desired so long as the limitations are clearly and unambiguously set forth in the contract and are not in conflict with statutory provisions or public policy Campbell v Markel American Ins Co 001448 p 10 La 1 Cir 9 822 So 617 App 01 21 2d 62324 writ denied 01 2813 La 1 805 So 204 Coverage exclusions 02 4 2d in insurance contracts are construed strictly against the insurer State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Noyes 021876 p 4 La 1 Cir 2 872 App 04 23 2d So 1133 1136 In support of its motion for summary judgment Scottsdale offered into evidence the insurance policy including the policy exclusions at issue and s plaintiff deposition In opposition to the motion plaintiff also relied on s plaintiff deposition and the policy exclusions She also offered certain pleadings from the record as well as copies of the depositions of Dorris Doc Carter s Sweetwater horseback riding guide and Rita Robichaud owner of Sweetwater It is undisputed that Sweetwater and Scottsdale entered into an insurance agreement on October 3 2005 which was in full force and effect at the time of s plaintiff accident The exclusions in the insurance policy relied on by Scottsdale are as follows ANIMAL EXCLUSION This policy does not provide coverage for Bodily injury property damage or medical payments to others caused by any animal whether owned or not owned by any insured 5 STABLE LIABILITY EXCLUSION The coverage provided by this policy does not apply to any bodily injury property damage personal injury or advertising injury claim or claims arising out of 1 Riding instructions performed by you or on your behalf or on behalf of others or 2 Rental or leasing of saddle animals to others or 3 The training of saddle animals involving riders not employed by you In this appeal plaintiff argues that genuine issues of material fact exist as to issues of negligence not covered by the exclusions For example plaintiff claims the animal exclusion does not exclude coverage in this matter because her bodily injury was not caused by an animal as required by the wording of the exclusion Rather plaintiff argues her injuries were caused by the guide s failure to ascertain whether plaintiff could safely engage in horseback riding and to manage the horse during her ride Plaintiff further asserts that the statutory exceptions to Sweetwater immunity or limits on liability are not covered by the s wording of the Stable Liability Exclusion Plaintiff maintains that Doc Carter the Sweetwater horseback riding guide was negligent in his efforts to safely manage the horse plaintiff was riding in his assessment of her abilities and in properly instructing plaintiff In its reasons the trial court specifically found that the animal and stable liability exclusions in the policy of insurance were clear and unambiguous and applicable in the instant matter We agree Plaintiff alleged in her petition that she suffered severe injuries while participating in equine activities In her deposition plaintiff stated that her family rented the horse that was involved in her accident and that she rode the horse after her nephew did not want to ride anymore Plaintiff further stated that she rode for about ten minutes when the horse suddenly bolted and she fell off The exclusions are unambiguous and do not afford recovery to a person for injuries caused by any animal Clearly the action of the horse bolting caused plaintiff to fall from the horse and suffer 11 injuries Additionally the stable liability exclusion excludes coverage for any injury arising out of riding instructions or the rental of a horse to others The policy exclusion is not limited to the rental of a horse to the individual who is injured but includes the r or leasing of saddle animals to others which ental unquestionably is the case before us Plaintiffs allegations are covered by the policy exclusions Accordingly the trial court correctly concluded that the policy exclusions were applicable precluding coverage and prohibiting recovery by the plaintiff against Scottsdale As there were no genuine issues of material fact Scottsdale was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law CONCLUSION For these reasons the trial court judgment granting summary judgment s in favor of the defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company is affirmed this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff Amy Ronquille Reid AFFIRMED 7 Costs of
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
