Robert C. Estes VS St. Tammany Parish School Board and Louis D. Boyne, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST i L CIRCLTIT NO 2012 CA 175 ROBERT C ESTES VERSUS ST TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD AND LOUIS D BOYNE JR Judgment Rendered N 7 2 3 k On Appeal frorn the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammzny State of Louisiana Trial Court No 2010 15104 Honorable August J Hand Judgz Presiding E James Gaidry Jr A2torney for Plaintiff Appellant lst Houma LA Robert C Estes Ronald 7 Attorney for Defendant Appellant 2nd Vega Kenner LA Louis D Boyne Jr Scott G Jones Attorneys for Defendant Appellee Lawrence J Boasso Encompass Insurance Company of America Mandeville LA David S Pittman Harry P Pastuszek Attorneys for Defendant Appellee Jr St Tammany Parish School Board Faith E Richard Covington LA BEFORE WHIPPLE C PARRO McCLENDON J HIGGINBOTHAM AND CRAIN JJ t I 1 C cn c f vv ss ls i a e i U J HIGGINBOTHAM J This appeal arose out of a physical altercation between two substitute teachers and the trial court dismissal of one of the teacher homeowners insurer s s on suminary judgment We reverse and remand for further proceedings BACKGROLTND Plaintiff Robert C Estes and defendant Louis D Boyne Jr are substitute teachers who were both interested in a long substitute teaching position at term Fountainbleau High School in Mandeville Louisiana Apparently the two men had exchanged heated words about which one of them was entitled to the position but on the evening of October 22 2009 their verbal dispute became physical After a volleyball game that both men attended at the school Mr Boyne approached Mr Estes who was conversing with a group of people inside the school gymnasium The parties dispute what happened once Mr Boyne reached the area where Mr Estes was standing and what led to Mr Boyne hitting Mr Estes in the face before bystanders separated the two men Mr Estes claims that he removed and handed his glasses to a friend when he saw Mr Boyne approaching and then Mr Boyne struck him in the face Mr Boyne indicates that after Mr Estes removed his glasses he felt threatened because Mr Estes immediately assumed a fighting posture Mr Boyne claims he simply reacted to the threat by attempting to defend himself and throw the first punch It is undisputed that only Mr Boyne threw a punch in the altercation Mr Estes filed this lawsuit against Mr Boyne and the St Tammany Parish School Board School Board asserting that his jaw neck and shoulder were injured when Mr Boyne negligently attacked him without just cause Mr Estes later added as a defendant Mr Boyne homeowners insurer Encompass s Insurance Company of America Encompass who allegedly provided liabiliry insurance coverage for Mr Boyne acts s 2 The School Board and Mr Boyne answered the lawsuit generally denying all of Mr Estes allegations Encompass answered the lawsuit dealying coverage based on an intentional act exclusion in the insurance policy it had issued to 1vlr Boyne On the same day it filei dts aa Encarrl fiied a mc for siiminary swer ass tion judgment seeking dismissal of 1 st s pto the intentional act policy r s iY a t suan exclusion In sup of its inocio lEncc ied a certified copy of the policy ort i si rrip as well as discovery responses filed by Mr Estes and excerpts from Mr Boyne s deposition and the deposition of a witness Irving Jerome Culbertson Encompass also relied on a surveillance video purporting to show Mr Boyne approaching and hitting 1VIr Estes The exclusion for intentional acts as amended by endorsement is found in the Encompass policy under the section for personal liability coverage The exclusion provides in pertinent part LOSSES WE DO NOT COVER 1 h Intended by or which may be reasonat expected to result Iy from the intentional acts or omissioris of one or more covered persons This exclusion arplies even if 1 Such covered pewson lacks the zne aapaeity to overn his or her tal conduct 2 Such bodily inju or ropert dainage is of a different kind y y quality or degee than zxiitially expected or intended or 3 Such bodily injury or pro damage is sustained by a different erty person entity real or personal property thar intended or reasonably expected However this exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force by one or more covered persons to protect persons o property r Mr Boyne opposed Encompass smotion for summary judgment by filing an affidavit attesting that he felt threatened by Mr Estes and that he had acted spontaneously and instinctively in self w4th no intent to injure Mr Estes defense 1 The video was submitted as an exhibit attached to Encompass xeply memorandum in support s of its motion for summary judgment 3 Mr Estes also opposed tha disrz of Encc an summary judgment by al snpass is referencing various d exceap ir nis op memorandum however ion posi s ositiion Mr Estes did not offer any eviden ta be led into the record in c to ee pposition s Encompass ation After a hearing ori April I 1 Z tE court t the matter under iu e ok advisement specifxcally lea tim for Fnc to fil acopy of ing mpass refoaanatted the school surveillance video into the record as well as time for the opposing s i parties to file oppositions to the admission of the surveillance video No oppositions were filed into the record Qn June 13 2012 the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of Encompass signing a judgment dismissing Encompass from the lawsuit Mr Estes and Mr Boyne filed separate appeals from the partial final judgment They essentially make the same argument that is that the trial court erred in granting snmmary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remain as to wh Mr Boyne actions were intentional ar ther s spontaneous and instinctive nd whe 1r 1Boyne acted in self Mr rier efense c Estes also maintains that srhe trial couri erred ir relying on the surveillance video because it required the trial eourc to make a subj interpretation of a factual ctive conclusion that is inappropnate for summa judgment LAV AND NALYSIS This court reviews swnmary judgment de n considering the same criteria avo applied by the tria ourt in decid wheidher summary judgment is appropriate ang Romano v Altentaler 2011 La App Cir 9 77 So 282 284 J3 Q3 lsti 14i11 3d Under the provisions of La Code Civ P art 966 the parky seeking 2 B summary judgmenY is required to prove two alements 1 that no genuine issues of material fact exist and 2 that it s entitled to judgment as a mattzr of law Lf the mover meets its burden of proving these two issues iYie burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce factual support suffieient to establish that 4 I he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial See La Code Civ P art 966 2 C Summary judgment may be rendered on the issue of insurance coverage alone See Romano 77 So3d at 284 However summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance olicy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policv when appiied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion under which coverage could be afforded Id Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality whether a particular fact in dispute is material can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to this case Jarrell v Travis 200 La 0117 App lst Cir 2906 So 551 553 OS 11 2d Summary judgment is rarely appropriate far disposition of a case requiring judicial determination of subjective facts such as intent motive malice good faith or knowledge Id But an exception is recognized when no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning the relevant zntent or motive and the only issue to be decided is the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from the uncaritested material facts See Romano 77 So at 284 However the issue of subjecti intent is 3d e intensive fact and is an issue to be determined by the totality t the circumstances f examined on a case basisa Inainna v Walcott 2002 La App lst by 0582 Cir 11 868 So 721 726 See also Baggett v Tassin 2009 La 03 21 2d 0803 App Sth Cir 3 39 So 666 670 10 23 3d 671 In this case Mr Boyne argues that the is a genuine issue of material fact re as to whether he acted in self Mr Boyne contends that he simply reacted defense spontaneously and instinctively to the situation presented when he walked up to Mr Estes after the volleyball game because he elt threatened by the actions of Mr Estes squaring off in a fighting posture immediately after he tapped Mr Estes on the shoulder Mr Boyne stated in his affidavit that he was defending 5 himself when he threw the first punch because he was afraid that Mr Estes was about to hit him and he did not intend to injure b7r Estes in any manner s Encompass intentional act exclusion clearly does not apply to injuries resulting from the use of easonable force ta protect persons Thus the question of whether Mr Boyne used reasonable force for his prc is obviously tection determinative of the outcome of this litigation Based on the facts presented summary judgment is inappropriate as to this issue Even the testimony of an independent witness Mr Culbertson does not assist in resolving the issue Mr Culbertson stated that he thought it was strange but Mr Estes handed over his watch for Mr Culbertson to hold while he was conversing with others after the game When Mr Culbertson turned to see what was going on he witnessed Mr Boyne punch Mr Estes in the face However Mr Culbertson did not witness what happened immediately prior to Mr Estes being punched and he specifically testified that he did not notice Mr Boyne actions s priar to the assault Thus the only evidence in the record consists of the conflicting versions of the altercation given by Mr Estes and Mr Boyne The surveillance video shows Mr Boyne approach as well as movement on the part of Mr Estes immediately s prior to Mr Boyne lunging toward Mr Estes with his arm outstretched s It is impossible to determine by watching the video whether Mr Boyne used reasonable force to protect himself in this situation or whether he aggressively struck Mr Estes for no apparent reason Based on the evidence summary judgment is inappropriate as to the self limitation presented in the intentional act defense exclusion of Encompass spolicy We are unable to find that Encompass spolicy unambiguously excludes coverage for this incident as a matter of law because the subjective intent of Mr Boyne is a critical factual issue 6 a genuine issue of material fact that is still to be determined Thus the case is not ripe for summary judgment CONCLUSION For the reasons stated we reverse the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of Encompass on the issue of insurance coverage and we remand this matter for further proceedings All costs of this appeal are to be paid by defendant Encompass Insurance Company of America appellee REVERSED AND REMANDED 7 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1750 G ROBERT C ESTES I VERSUS ST TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD AND LOUIS D BOYNE R i McCLENDON J dissents and assigns reasons It is clear that Mr Boyne was the aggressor and could have walked away from the confrontation at any time prior to throwing the punch Therefore I find that the intentional act exclusion in the policy applies respectfully dissent Accordingly I must
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.
