Norris v. Guthrie

Citations: 618 So. 2d 893; 1993 La. App. LEXIS 1505; 1993 WL 124091Docket: No. 92-CA-991

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 14, 1993; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The lawsuit for damages stems from an alleged assault and battery by an intoxicated minor, Allen Guthrie, against plaintiff Jeffrey T. Norris on November 24, 1988. Norris filed suit on December 20, 1988, against multiple defendants, including the Guthries and their minor child, Arthur Kospelich, and the Hollisters. The assault occurred in front of Norris's residence, with allegations that Kospelich and Jimmy Hollister joined in the attack while Allen Guthrie restrained him. 

Norris subsequently amended his petition to include James E. Hollister and to assert claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, the liability insurer for the Guthries. On June 8, 1989, he expanded the suit to include Danny and Clyde’s Food Store, Inc. and its insurer, alleging they violated LSA-R.S. 26:88 by selling alcohol to the minor. 

Danny and Clyde's initially filed a motion for summary judgment on June 25, 1991, which was denied in October 1991. Further amendments added Stephen Cernnich and his insurer as defendants, claiming negligence for supplying alcohol to a minor. A partial settlement led to the dismissal of claims against several defendants, reserving the plaintiff's rights against others.

On June 8, 1992, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that its policy with Danny and Clyde’s did not cover Norris's claims. The court ruled in favor of State Farm on August 18, 1992, leading to appeals from both Danny and Clyde’s and the plaintiff regarding the dismissal of the action against State Farm. The summary judgment motion was based on the business policy effective during the incident, with supporting depositions from relevant parties. The trial court found no dispute over the facts presented in those depositions.

On November 24, 1988, Allen Guthrie (17) and Steve Cernnich (18) purchased beer from Danny and Clyde’s, subsequently consuming it while driving. Guthrie, feeling intoxicated and seeing his ex-girlfriend with the plaintiff, exited the vehicle and assaulted the plaintiff, leading to a battery claim. State Farm, the insurer for Danny and Clyde’s, asserts that its policy's exclusion clause is valid and applies to both minor and adult alcohol sales, particularly when such sales violate laws regarding alcohol distribution. The relevant exclusionary provision states that coverage does not extend to bodily injury or property damage arising from the business of selling alcohol or from any violation of statutes related to alcohol sales, specifically when involving minors or intoxicated individuals.

Appellants argue that excluding coverage for negligent sales of alcohol to minors contradicts public policy and insurance regulations, citing LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1, which limits civil liability for alcohol sales to individuals 21 and over. They reference Attorney General Opinion No. 90-411, suggesting that while limited liquor liability exclusions are permissible, they cannot remove coverage for damages caused by sales that contribute to a minor's intoxication. However, the court views this opinion as non-persuasive since it was issued after the relevant policy's effective dates and the incident in question. Furthermore, existing jurisprudence supports the validity of similar exclusion provisions, affirming that such exclusions are enforceable, regardless of the age of the person served alcohol, as seen in Morris v. Nu-Way Beverage Co., which upheld an insurer's summary judgment in a case involving a minor.

In Morrison v. Miller, the court upheld the validity of an alcohol liability exclusion in insurance policies concerning sales to adults. In Miller v. Benson, the lower court's summary judgment favoring the insurer of a seller of alcohol to a minor was affirmed, reinforcing the exclusion of such coverage. McCartney v. State Farm Insurance Co. similarly validated the alcohol liability exclusion for sales to minors, ruling that the insurer was not negligent for not covering such instances. In Duplin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, emphasizing the clarity of the exclusion. The most recent case, Morris v. Nu-Way Beverage Co., dismissed a public policy argument against the exclusion, asserting that while LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1 does not limit liability for retailers selling to minors, it does not prohibit insurers from excluding coverage related to such sales. The court concluded that the exclusionary clause was valid, affirming the summary judgment and ordering costs to be borne by the appellant.