Billy Ray Doyle & Lisa Marie Godfrey Doyle VS Stephen Murphy, et al
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2013 CA 1730 BILLY RAY DOYLE AND LISA MARIE GODFREY DOYLE G, t/ VERSUS STEPHAN MURPHY, ET AL. Judgment Rendered: QY 2 ?_014 Appealed from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana Trial Court Number 165, 923 Honorable David W. Arceneaux, Judge Julius P. Hebert, Jr. Attorneys for Appellant Brian J. Marceaux Plaintiff Billy Ray Doyle Heather C. McAllister Houma, LA William S. Watkins Houma, LA Attorney for Appellee Defendant Sonia Murphy James S. Thompson Attorney for Appellee New Orleans, LA Defendant Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CRAIN, JJ. WELCH, J. Plaintiff, Billy Ray Doyle, appeals a judgment granting motions for summary judgment in favor of defendants, Sonia Murphy and Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company ( Farm Bureau), and sustaining both defendants' peremptory exceptions raising the objection of no cause of action. We affirm the judgment dismissing all of the plainiiff' s claims against Sonia Murphy and Farm Bureau and issue this opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2( A)(5) and ( 6). Plaintiff' s daughter, Amanda, was killed when a vehicle in which she was riding, driven by Stephen Murphy, left the roadway and hit a brick mailbox. Plaintiff sued a number of defendants seeking damages arising from the fatal collision, including for the purposes of this appeal, Sonia Murphy, Stephen' s mother, and Farm Bureau, in its capacity as Sonia' s homeowners' insurer and the automobile liability insurer of Sonia and her husband. Plaintiff alleged that Stephen was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and asserted that his mother was at fault based on her failure to contact law enforcement shortly before the accident when she knzw that her son was driving under the influence of alcohol. Sonia and State Farm filed motions for summary judgment and exceptions of no cause of action. These motions and exceptions asserted that: ( 1) Sonia did not breach any legal duty and was not at fault in causing Amanda' s death and therefore, the homeowner' s policy provided no coverage to Sonia; and ( 2) the Farm Bureau automobile policy excluded coverage far the accident because it is undisputed that the vehicle Stephen was driving was not listed on the Farm Bureau policy and had been furnished to Stephen for his regular use by his grandfather. In granting the motions for summary judgment and the exceptions of no cause of action, the trial court issued extensive written reasons detailing the background of this case, the parties' central arguments, and its legal conclusions 2 regarding liability based upon the undisputed facts of this case. After a thorough review of the record, we find no error in the trial court' s conclusions that Sonia did not owe a duty to report to law enforcement that her son was driving under the influence of alcohol and that the Farm Bureau policy did not provide liability coverage to Stephen or uninsured motorist coverage to Amanda. We affirm the judgment and in so doing, we adopt the trial court' s written reasons as our own, attaching those reasons hereto as Appendix A. All costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant, Billy Ray Doyle. AFFIRMED. 3 J BILLY RAY DOYLE 32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT V ¢ STEPHEN A. MURPHY, NUNIBER DOCKET PARISH OF TERRfiBONNE I* ET AL STATE QF LOUISIANA j* 165923 DISIISION D REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GRI NTING PEREMPTORY EXCEPTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR SUhII*IARY JUDGMENT On February 9, 2012; Billy ktay Doyle and Lisa Marie Godfr y Doyle filed the instajnt suit seeking' damages as a result of death the of their daughte r Amanda Doyle, The plaintiffs allege their daughter was kil;' led while riding as a passenger in a Ford Ranger pickup truck ope lated by Stephen A. Murphy who was under influence the December 11, of 1. alcohq' According to the petition, on 2011, Mr. Murphy failed to negotiate a cunre on Savanne Road in Houma and thel truck flipped over into a ditch after hitting Murphy' s a brick grandfather mailbox'. The plaintiffs identified Mr, pupree, Michael Sr. , as the owner of the pickup tsuck. Initially named as d fendants were Mr. Murphy, Allstate Insurance Company ( hereinafte r '° Allstate") as the automobile liability insurer of Mr. Murp y under a policy which insured the Ford Ranger, and Louisiana Fa r[n Bureau Casualty Insurance Company hereinafter of Mr. aG the automobile liability insurer Murphy gursuanC to a p licy insur. ing another vehicle. On Marie Farm Bureau") March 13 , Godfrey Doyle only Mr. 2012, t e alaims of Amanda s mother Lisa were ssed without prejudice, Doyle as the plainti f in this case. By supplemental petiikions filed August 16, November eleven 8, 2012, additional l. Stephen A. accident leaving and Januaryll4, defendants, , Shane' Snyder, th 2013, 2012, the plaintiff named including: alleged driver of a vehicle Murphy claimed cut lin front of him and caused the in question; 2 . John Boudreawc and Shayna Boudreau c, who are alleged to have hosted .a pasty and furnished alcohol to Stephen A. Murphy at their home shortly before the aacident; Cf',AN FC' Nar o s zo 3 h a J 3. Edward Zurga and Debra 2urga, whose liability to the plaintiff is based on their a], leged responsibility for the mailbax struck by Stephen A. Murphy; 4. Sonia Murphy, Stephen A. Muxphy s mother, whose I.iabiliCy is alleged to be based upon her failure to contact law enfarcement shorty before the accident when she knew that her son was driving under the influence of alcohol; 5. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government hereinafter " TPCG") , the alleged " owner" of Savanne Road and against whom the plaintiff asserts liability for failure to keep the Savanne Road right of way clear of the mailbox owned by Edward 2urga and Debra Zurga; 6. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company hereinafter " State Farm") , the homeowners liability insurer of John and Shayna Boudreaux; 7. Farm Bureau, in its capacity as the homeowners liability insurer of Sonia Murphy; 8. Lighthouse Property Insurance Cvrporation hereinafter " Lighthouse") , Edward and Debza Zurga; 9. the homeowners liability insurer of and, Progressive Security Insurance Company ( hereinafter Progressive" 1 , the automobiZe liability insurer of Shane Snyder. On December 21, 2012, the claims of the plaintiff against sohn and Shayna Boudreaux and their alleged homeowners liability insurer State Fas n, were dismissed with prejudice. On December 10, 2012, Farm Bureau filed . motion for a surtm ary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against it in its capacity as the autamobile liability insurer of a vehicle not involved in the following day, accident which on December 11, peremptory exception of no resulted 2012, cause of in Amanda s death. The Farm Bureau filed a action and a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against it in its capacity as the homeowners insurer of Steven A. Murphy s mother, Sonia Murphy. On February 19, 2013, Sonia Muzphy individually filed a peremptory exception and a motion for SCA in!Er NAY 7 Qj3 l J summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against her. A hearing on the two motians for summary judgment and peremptory exception filed by Faxm Bureau was held on March 22, 2013 . By agreement of all counsel, the motion for summary judgment and peremptory exception filed by Sonia Murphy scheduled for hearing on April S, 2013, was submitted on the pleadings. Covnsel agreed that the documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff and Farm Hureau and received as evidence at the hearing on March 22, 2013 , was to be accepted by the court in connection with the hearing scheduled for April 5, 2013 . In support of its motion for summary judgment, Farm Bureau, in ita capacity as an automobile liability insurer, offered the following iteme of documentary evidence at the hearing in this matter on March 22, Exhibit A: 2013 : Copy of the June 19, Stephen A. Murphy; Exhibit B: Copy of Ntichael Dupre, Sr. ; Exhibit C: the June 19, 2012, deposition of 2012, deposition of Copy of Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company policy number 98521388611/ 25 issued to Michael and Mary Dupre for a 2006 Ford Ranger truck and other listed vehicles; Exhibit D: opy of Louisiana Farm Hureau Casualty Insurance Company policy number AV72957 issued to Rabert and Sonia Muxphy for a 2002 Ford F150 pickup truck; and, Fsxhibit E: Copy of the June 19, 2012, deposition of Sonia Murphy. In opposition to this motion for summary judgment filed by Farm Bureau, the plaintiff offered and the court accepted the following items of documentary evidence: Exhibit 1: The entire record of this proceeding; Exhibit 2; Copy of Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company policy number AV72957 issued to Robert- and Sonia Murphy for a 2002 Ford F150 pickup truck; Exhibit 3: Copy of Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company policy number 98521388611/ 25 issued to Michae7. and Mary Dupre far a 2006 Ford Ranger truck and other listed vehicles; Exhibit 4: Copy of the June 19, 2012, deposition of the June 19, 2012, deposition of Stephen A. Murphy; Fsxhibit 5: Copy Sonia Murphy; of and, SCANNEC` NAY 0 6 2Q 5$ Exhibit 6: Copy Michael Dupre, of the June 19, 2012, Sr. deposition of In support of its motion for summary judgment, Farm Bureau, in its capaaity as the homeowners iiability insurer of Sonia Murphy, offe red the follovring items of documentary evidence at the hearing in Exhibit A: Stephen A. Exhibit this mat Copy er the of an March 22, June :L9, Murphy; B: 2i312, 2013 : deposition of Copy of Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company homeowner policy number H0426569 issued to Robert and Sonia Murphy for the premises at 225 Fairmont Drive, Houma, Louisiana; and, Exhibifi C: Copy the Jvne 19, of 2012, Sonia Murphy. deposition of These same items have been accepted as evidence by the court on behalf of Sonia Murphy in connection with her motion for summary judgment. In opposition to this motion for summary judgment filed by Farm Bureau and the motior. for summary judgment filed by Sonia Murphy, the plaintiff offered and the court accepted the following items of documentary evidence: E chibit 1: Exhibit 2: The entire record of this proceeding; Copy of the June 19, 2012, deposition of of the June 19, 2012, degosiEion of Copy of the Jtxne 19, 2012, deposition of 2012, deposition of Sonia Muxghy; Exhihit 3: Copy Robert Murphy; Exhibit 4: Stephen A. ExhiBit 5: Murphy; Copy Michael Dupre, Exhzbit 6: the of Sr. ; June 19, and, Copy of Louisiana ' arm Sureau Mutual Insurance Company homeowner policy number H0426569 issued tc Robert and 3onia Murphy for the premises at 225 Fairmont Drive, Aouma, i9ouisiana. The court has thoroughly reviewed all of the pleadings, exhibits, thoroughly and memoranda cansidered offered the by arguments the parties, of counsel. and has For the reasons that follow, the court has granted the peremptory exceptions sought herein and has granted both motions for summary judgment requested by Farm Bureau and the motion for summary judgment requested by 5onia Murphy. CCANTIED Navasto» 759 j The puxnase o' the pe* Gx exGep z.an of no cause of action is to detennin.e he su fic en y in 1aw o the petitioner s claim. The exceptiora is triable n rh face of the pleading. The well- pled facts must be accepked as crse and evidence is not to admissible support pr controvext, the exception. in the face o£ such an exceptian, ths cour ss n Aigated to detexmine whether the proponent is legally entitlec to the relief sought. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 931; Evervthina on Wheels Subaru Inc. v. Subaru South. Inc , 616 So. 2d 1234 ( La. , 1993) . In his petition, the p. aintiff asserts liability against Fazm Bureau and Sonia Murphy based on the alleged breach of a legal duty by Sonia Murphy to contact law enforcement shortly before the accident and report that lxsr son was drinking and driving with a passenger in his vehicle, despite her knowledge that he was doing so. Both Farm Bureau and ¢ 3ania Murphy have asserted a peremptory exeeptfon of no cause of action in this proceeding. It is the position of Sonia Murphy that she had no legal duty to control, prvtect, or warn against the actions of her adult son which allegedly led to the death of . manda. Farm Bureau' s position is that in the absence af some breach of duty by Sonia Murphy, its insured, it is n t liable to khe plaintiff. Under Louisiana l.a v, i a elements of a cause of actioa are ase of this nature, the aul E causation, and damage. In order to be found at fault s,n this aa e, Son a Murphy must have been negligence negligent issue, in some regard, In order to resolve the the court muat detexmina the dutg imposed by law on her, if any, and then determine w aether or not the risk which led to the incident in queation, was within the scope of tha duty, For the risk to be within *_ scope he f that duty, the duty imposed on the defendant muet have been intended ko protect against the risk involvede Absent eitk er a duty to the plaintiff, or a risk included within negligence on dnty depends the part on a case- oE th by- case hat duty, there is no defendant. analysie. The impoaition of a Gresham v. Davenoort, SCANNED MAY 0 6 2013 537 So. 2d 1144 ( La. , 1999) . is no duty There the on part of anyone, including the parent of' an adult driver, to report to law enforcement, prior to an accident or otherwise, that someone is drinking and driving, even despite legitimate eoncerns that an accident miaht occur. In his petition, the plaintiff con£ irms that the defendant Stephen A. Murphy is a major domiciliary and there is no suggestion by the plaintiff in any of- his pleadings or otherwise that the alleged liability of Sonia Murphy is vicarious. In the absence of a duty on her part, neither Sonia Murphy nor her homeowner insurer Farm Bureau can be liable in this case. Each of their pexemgtoxy exceptions of no cause of action is wellfounded. Ordinarily, undez article 934 of the Louisiana Code of ivi2 Procedure, when the grovnds of an objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order an amendment of the petition. However, in light of the court ' s ruling with regard to the common motion for summary judgment filed by Sonia Murphy and Fann Bureau, such an amendment would serve no purpose. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966 declares that summary judgment procedure is favored in Louisiana and shall be construed to determination accomplish o£ judicial the just, speedy, proceedings. and inexpensive The party requesting summary judgment is entitled to the same as a matter of law if the pleadings, admissions, there is no depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits furnished by the parties show that genuine issue as to material fact. Ordinarily, the burden of proof to make such a showing is on the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial, the movar t' s burden on the motion for summary judgment is merely to show an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party' s claim, defense. article action, or As provided by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 966 ( C) ( 2) , ^[ t7hereafter, if the adverse party fails to SCANNF MAY O6 20i3 5 J I produce factual suppdrt sv fi a.ent to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary bu° den of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue ot mat aal fact. " In this ca e, at tria. th glaintiff will bear the buzden of praving al1 the eieme ts af his claims bp a preponderance motions for o£ th d2nce. evs. summary judgmen, Ir crder to prevail an their Sc nia Murphy and Farm Bureau, as her homeowner insurer, need only allege an absence of factual support for an essential elemen* of the plaintiffs' claims. Because, as described above, Sonia Murphy had no legal duty to the plaintiff in this case, an esaential element of the plaintiff' s claims against her and Fazm Bureau is missing. The court finds, based on a revievr of the evidence offered by the there is no genuine issue of any material fact that parties, could serve as a basis to impose liabzZity upon Sonia Murphy in this case, As a result, and because the liability of Farm Bureau under its homeowners policy depends on the liability of Sonia Murphy, the motions for summa y judgment filed by Sonia Murphy and Farm Bureau as her homeowziers insurer must be granted. Farm Bureau also filed a motion for summary judgment as the automobile insurer of Robezt and Sonia Murphy, alleging that there is no enuine issue of material fact to the effect that its automobile liabi],ity paliey excl sd s coverage for the plaintiff 's ciaims against it because Stephen A. Murghy, a tkze time of the accident, was operating a vetzic'! e fusnished for his regular uae and not described in the golicy issued by Farm Bureau. In support of its position, Farm Bureau nffered as evidence a copy of its policy number AV72957 issued to Robert and 5onia Murphy for a 2002 Ford F150 p; ckup t 1ck effe tive for a term of six months which inclixded the date of the accident in this case. It is undisputed that ak the time of the accident Stephen Ae Murphy was operating a 2? 06 Ford Ranger pickup truck inaured by Allstate policy number 98521388611/ 25 issued tc Michael involved and Mary Dupre. The 200e Ford F150 piCkup truck aas not in the acci.dent. et';ANN[,+ NAY o fi 2013 7sz In support of its mot9.on for summaxy judgment, Farm Hureau points to Che following language in ita policy: USE OF OTHER AUTOMOBILES If the named insured is an individual or husband and wife, and if during the policy period auch named insured or the spouse of such individual, truck owns a private passenger automobile or farm by this polic, uch insuranee as is covered afforded by this policy. . , with respect to said automobile appliea with respect to the use of any other automobile with permission of the owner aubject to the following provisions: a} Uader Coverages A and B [ bodily injury and property damage liability] only, the unqualified word insured" il) includes: sueh named insured and spouse while a resident of the named insured s houaehold aad a relativa of the aamed insured or apouse while a reaident of the named iaaured' s houeehold. . , . fd) This insuring agreement does not apply: 1) to any automobile owned by or furnished for regular use to either the named inaured or a member of the same household. . . . ^ Emphasis added) . There is no genuine issue regarding the following facts. First, the 2006 Ford Ranger pickup truck operated by Stephen A. Murphy at the time of the accident was owned by his graadfather, Michael Dupre. Secandly,, this vehicle was furnished to Stephen A. Murphy for his segular uae, and at the time of the accident he was operating the truck witls hie grandfather' s permission. Finally, the vehicle is not listed as a covered vehicle in the Farm Bureau policy and the named insureds under the policy are Robert Randall Murphy and 3onia Dupre Murphy, husband and wife, who were residenta of the same household. As reau]. t a of the foregoing undisputed Ford Ranger pickup truck operated by Stephen A. facts, the 2006 Murphy at the time of the accident is an " other automobzle" for which coverage would be possible under the Farm Bureau policy in favor of Stephen A. Murphy if he is "a relative of the named insured or spouse other while words, a resident of the named insured' s household. In if he tivas related to Robert Randall Murphy or Sonia Dupre Muxphy and he was a reaident of their household at the time of the accident, coverage in his favor under the Farm Bureau SCANiVEp MAY 0 6 1013 7s3 L./ policy would be pos i Ye. It at insureds is the Buzeau admits if he was time that his o reszden a tep clear such a P.. nen Y,ksA of reside*, df a s . hcus. parents ' F3e is acciderx*_. s ther Mu phy was relatecl to the named ^ + he time cf. the accident. 1 0 not snch a residento t, here weu d be Farm son. s to wl ether or not he was Id. overa their be posszbJ e. If he was c s. pverage. Notwithstandin.g the gosszbility oE coverage under the Farm Bureau policy if Stephen A.. fuzpl y was a resident of his parents ' household at "he time of the accident, t is there asserts agreement " does no not because, coverage apply . , ta any in any Farm Bureau the insuring event, automobile. . . furnished for regular use to either the named insured or a member of the same hnusehold. . . . " Under Chis exclusion was a resident of his parents even if Stephen A. Murphy househald and coverage would be a possibility, that possibility is extinguished because coverage is excluded far any autamobile furnistaed fer the regular use of a member the household. of genuine dispute a out And ae stated above, there is no he faGt t at the vehicle Stephen A. Murphy was operating at the Cime of Che cci3ent was fumished to him by hia grandfather for his regular ase- The plaintiff has x ¢aised the + csaibility that Farm Bureau may be liable to th prowiaa.ons uninsured/ vnderinsured the policy pravide occupying an plainti.fE pureuant to the su n coverage insured automobi7 e. " cf it policy. The court notes a " any other. Qersqn while It appears the plaintiff would be entitled to the benefits of such coverage if Amanda occupied an insured automobile. " Insured automobile^ is a term defined on pagea five and six the of Farm Bur au pclicy. Yt is uadispute. that d the vehicle operated iy Stephen Ae Murphy at the time of the aacident was not described named in the Farm B insureds Robert eau Randail policye ri% uzphy It was not ovrz ed or 6onia IIupre y the It Murphy. was not a temporary substitute au omabile for an othervrise insured automobile. As a result, the 2006 Ford Ranger pickug SCA IN ED MAY 0 6 iUi3 764 J truck can be an insured automobile `under the uninsured/ underinsured motorist provisi" ns of the Farm Hureau policy only if it was a non- owned autom bile being operated by a named insured. The was not a vehicle named was insured. being operated Therefor, by Stephen A. Murphy. He the e is no uninsured/ underinsuzed motorist coverag provided by the Earm Bureau pol.icy in this case. Judgment has been rendered in acoordance with these reasons. REA60NS GIVEN in Chambera at Houma, Louisiana, on this 23rd day of April, 2013 . D ID ENEAUX, Di tr' et Please 1. serve: The P.plaintiff Billy Ray Doyle through his attorney of record Hebert, Jr. , Julius Louisiana 2. ge 70360 . 4752 Highway 311, Suite 114, The defendant Louisiana Farm Bureau Caeualty Insurance Company thsough its attorney of record James S. Carondelet Street, New Orleans, 3. Houma, Louisiana Thompson, 704 70130. The de£ endant Sonia Murphy through her attorney of record S. William Watkins, Louisiana 70361. lol Wilson Avenue, P. 0. Box 3017, Houma, APR 2 5 2013 oea ny c r n ar onr, v SCANNEI? NpY D 610i3 765
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.
