### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30954 S u m m ary C al en da r
FI DELI TY& CAS UALT Y C OM PA NY OF NEW YORK P la in tiff v. BUC K K RE I HS C OMPA NYI NC D e fe nda nt

_________________________________________________________ J I M M YL ANG P la in tiff v. EA GL E I NC D e fe nda nt B U C KK R E IH S C O M P A N YIN C , a s s u c c e s s o rto S a n k In c a n d fo r m e r ly kn ow n as J. K
. T
. an d A ssoc i ates, I n c. D e fe nda nt- Thi r d- Par t y Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant v. CH I CAG O I N SURA N CE CO M PAN Y; I N TERSTATE FI RE AN D CA SUALTY CO M P ANY T h i rd- P art y D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

_______________________________________________________________ CH I CAG O I N SURA N CE CO M PAN Y; I N TERSTATE FI RE AN D CA SUALTY CO M P ANY United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30954

Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent exceptunder the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l ees v. B U C KK R E IH S C O M P A N YIN C , a s s u c c e s s o rto S a n k In c a n d fo r m e r ly kno w n a s J
. K
. T. a nd As s o c i at e s , I nc D efen d a n ts - A p p ell a n ts
A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N os . 2: 06- C V

- 2389, 2: 06- C V

- 2311, 2: 06- C V

- 2310

B ef ore S M ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * B u c k K r e ih s C o m p a n yI n c . (“ B u c k K r e ih s ” ) a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
s um m ar y j udg m e nti n fav o ro f Chi c ag o I ns ur anc e Com pa ny ( “ Chi c ag o ” ) a nd I nt e r s t at e Fi r e a nd Cas ual t y Com pa ny ( “ I nt e r s t at e ” ) (t o ge t he r“ I ns ur e r s ” ) i n a decla ra to ry j u d g m e n t a ctio n to d e te rm in e in su ra n ce co v e rage of asbest os- rel ated
c l a i m s b yf

o r m e rBu c k Kr e i h s e m p l o y e e s . W e AF FI RM
.

I
. B AC KGR OUND B u ck K reih s w as i n corpo ra te d in 1 9 6 3 to p e rfo rm m a in te n a n ce a n d re pa i rs o n s hi ps do c ke d i n t he Po r to f N e w O r l e ans . Ove r t he pa s t1 0 ye ar s , t he
com pa n y h as becom e a defen da n ti n a nu m ber of cl ai m s by f

orm er em pl oyees a r i s i n go u to f

e x p o s u r e t o a s b e s t o s . T h e s e c l a i ms s p a n s e v e r a ld e c a d e s , s o me i n vol vi n g al l eged exposu res as far back a s t h e 196 0s. I n 1 9 7 4 , Bu c k Kr e i h s p u r c h a s e d p o l i c i e s o f i n s u r a n c e , i n c l udi ng C o m p r e h e n s iv e G e n e r a l L ia b il it y(“ C G L ” ) a n d E m p lo y e r ’s L ia b il it y/W o r k m e n ’sN o. 08- 30954

Buck Kreihs acknowledges th at anycl aims exclu ded under the Chicago policies are 1 also exclu ded under the Interstat e policy , an d th erefore we address only the lan gu age of th e C hic a go polici es . The case was th en consoli d at ed witha declaratory action byanother insurance 2 company, whichh as settled. 3 C om pen sati on ( “ E m pl oyer’ s Liabi l i t y”) pol i ci es, f rom C h i cago an d an excess c ove r age pol i c y f

r om Int er st at e. Th e pol i c i es w er e i n ef f ec tf r om M ar c h 1, 1974, t h rough Jan u ary 15, 197 5, part of t h e t i m e du ri n g w h i ch t h e asbest os exposu res occurred. Inter st ate’ s pol i cy l i st ed B u ck K rei h s as t h e i n sured p art y an d i s on a “ f o l l o w i ng f

o r m ” bas i s , i nc o r po r at i ng t he i de nt i c alc o ve r ag e s , pr o vi s i o ns , a nd
exc l usi ons as th e u n der l yi ng C G L and E m pl oye r ’ s Li abi l i t y po l i c i es i ss ued by C h i cago. 1 The CG L po l i c y c o nt ai ns a n e xc l us i o n o f c o ve r ag e f

o rb o di l y i nj ur y t o a ny em pl oyees of

B u ck K rei h s. T h e E m pl oyer’ s L i abil i t y pol i cy excl u des coverage of
c l ai m s f or bodi l y i nj ury by di se as e w her e t he c l ai m s w er e no tm ade o rs ui tw as n o t file d w ith in t h ir ty -s ixm o n th s o f th e t e r m in a tio n o f th e p o lic y , w h ic h w o u ld hav e b e e n J anua r y 15 , 1 97 8. The CG L po l i c y al s o i nc o r po r at e s t hi s e xc l us i o n. I n Augus t2 00 7, Chi c ag o a nd I nt e r s t at e s ue d f o r a de c l ar at o r y j udg m e nt de t e r m i ni ng t hat t he i r po l i c i e s do no t pr o vi de c o ve r ag e t o Buc k Kre i hs r e ga r di ng a grou p of

pen di n g asbestos exposu re c ases i n vol vi n g f orm er em pl oyees. B u ck K r e i hs t he n f

i l e d a c o unt e r c l ai m a l l e gi ng t he I ns ur e r s ’b adfai t h i n ha ndl i ng t he cl ai m s. C h i cago an d Inters t ate m oved f or s u m m ary j u dg m en tan d d i sm i ssalof 2 B u ck K rei h s’ s c ou n t ercl ai m . O n O ct ober 9 , 200 7, t h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed
sum m ary j u dg m en tt o In surers on theird ecl arator y j u dg m en ta ct i on , bu tden i ed ita s to d is m is s a l o f B u c k K r e ih s ’s c o u n t e r c l a i m . R e ly in go n th is c o u r t ’s i n t erpret ati o n o f

s i m i l arpo l i c i e s und e rLo ui s i anal aw i n Ri v e r woo d I nt e r nat i o nal Cor po r at i o n v. E mploy e r s Ins ur anc eof W as au , 420 F. 3d 378 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) , as w el las r ec entdec i si ons of t he Loui si ana c our t s, t he di st r i c tc our tc onc l uded t hatN o. 08- 30954

4 th e p o lic ie s ’e x c lu s io n o f c o v e r a g e o f “b o d ily inju r y b y d is e a s e ” u n le s s th e cla im i s brough tw i t h i n t h i rt y- si x m on t h s of t h e en d of

the pol i cy excl u ded coverage of t he a s be s t o s - r e l at e d s ui t s . On Sep t e m be r1 6, 2 00 8, t he di s t r i c tc o ur te nt ered f i n alj u dg m en tpu rsuan tt o R u l e 54(b) of t h e F ederalR u l es of C ivi lP rocedure. I I
. D I S CUS S I ON A
. S t an d ardof

R evi ew W e rev i ew the distric t c o u rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Ri v e r w o o d I nt ’lCor p. , 420 F. 3da t3 82
. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr opri at e w he r e “ t he pl e ad i ngs , t he d is c o v e r ya n d d is c lo s u r e m a te r ia ls o n file , a n d a n ya ffid a v its s h o w t h a t th e r e is
n o gen u i n e i ssue as t o an y m ater ia l factan d that t h e m ovan ti s enti t l ed to a j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c ). B
. T h e “ B od i l y I n j u ry by D i sease ”

Excl u si on

“ U nde rLo ui s i ana l aw, a n i ns ur anc e po l i c y i s a c o nt r ac tb e t w e e n t he pa rt i es, an d i tshou l d be con st rued accor di n g t o t h e gen eralru les of contr act i n terp reta ti on set f

orth i n the C ivilC od e.” R i v e r w o o d I nt ’lCor p. , 420 F. 3d at 382 (c i t i ng L a. I

n s. G u ar. A ss’

n v. Int ers t ate Fi re & Cas. Co. , 630 So. 2d 759, 763 ( L a. 199 4) )

. “ Inter pretat i on of a contr acti s t h e deter m i n ati on of t h e com m on in te n t o f th e p a r tie s ,” a n d “[w ]h e n th e w o r d s o f a co n tr a c t a r e cle a ra n d e x p lic it
a n d le a d t o n o a b s u r d c o n s e q u e n c e s , n o fu r th e rin te r p r e ta tio n m a yb e m a d e in
s e a r ch of th e p a rti es’i n ten t. ” L A
. C IV . C ODE A NN . art s. 204 5 an d 204 6 (19 8 5 ). W e concl u de that t h e di st ri ctcourtproperl y determ i n ed that t h e i n sur a n ce pol i ci es ati ssue do n otprovi de coverage to B u ck K rei h s f or the asbestos

- rel ated
c la im s o f its fo r m e re m p lo y e e s . 1. A pp l i cabi l i t y of t h e E m pl oyer’ s Liabi l i t y pol i cy The Em pl o ye r ’ s Li ab i l i t y po l i c y i s s ue d byC hi c ag o pr o vi de s t he f o l l o w i ng rel evan tcoverage, subj ectt o t h e pol i cy’ s excl u si on s and l i m i t ati on s:N o. 08- 30954

5 C overage B – E m pl oyer’ s Liabi l i t y: T o pa y on beh al f of t h e i n sured al ls um s w hi c h t he i nsur ed s hal l bec om e l egal l y o bl i gat ed t o payas d a m a g e s b e c a u s e o f b o d ilyinju r yb ya c c id e n t o rd is e a s e . . . su sta i n ed i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates of A m eri ca, i t s t erri t ori es or p o s s e s s io n s , o r C a n a d a b y h is e m p lo y m e n t b yth e in s u r e d e ith e rin o p e r a tio n s in a S ta te d e s ig n a te d in T e r r ito r ia l L im i ts o rin operati on s necessary ori n ci den t alt h eret o. I n addi t i on, t he pol i c y c ont ai ns s eve r alex c l usi o ns , i ncl udi ng t he f ol l ow i ng: Th i s i nsur ance doe s notappl y:

. . . (e) U n d er C ov e r a g e B , to b od i l y inj u ryby disea se u n l ess pr i or to th ir ty -s ixm o n th s a fte rth e e n d o f th e P o lic yP e r io d w r itt e n cla im is m ad e or s u i ti s brough tagainstt h e I n sured fordam ages becau se of s u c h inju r yo rd e a th re s u ltin gth e r e fr o m . . . . T h i s excl u si on ( “ E xcl u si on ( e) ” ) w as a l so ad ded to the C G L pol i cy, as di scussed bel ow . The E m pl oye r ’ s Li abi l i t y po l i c y def i nes bodi l y i nj ury by acc i dentan d by di sease as f

ol l ow s: (c ) B o d ilyInju r yb yA c c id e n t; B o d ilyInju r yb yD is e a s e . T h e contr act i on by dis ease is n otan acci den tw i t h i n t h e m ean i n g of th e w o r d “ a c c id e n t” in t h e t e r m “b o d ilyinju r yb ya c c id e n t” a n d o n ly s u c h d is e a s e a s re s u lts d ir e c t l y f r o m a b o d ilyinju r yb ya c c id e n t is incl u ded w i t h i n t h e t erm “bod i l y i nj u ry by acci den t ”

. Th e t erm “bo d i l y i nj u ry by di sease” i n cl u des on l y such di sease as i s not i n cl u d ed w i th i n the term “bod i l y inj u ryby accid en t”. B u ck K rei h s argues t h at t h e t h i rt y -six -m on t h report i n g requ i rem en tof E xcl u si on ( e) does not app l y t o t h e em pl oyees’ asbestos

- rel ated di seases because t ho s e c l a i m s a r e i n s t e a d “b o d i l yi nj u r yb ya c c i d e n t , ” t h e a c c i d e n tb e i n gt he im p a c t o f a s b e s to s fib e r s o n th e w o r k e r s ’ lu n g s . H o w e v e r , o u rco u r t p r e v io u s ly
r ej e c t e d th is a r g u m e n t in in te r p r e tin ga n id e n tic a l d e fin itio n a n d m a te r ia lly i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e t h i r t y - s i x - mo n t h r e p o r t i n gr e q u i r e me n tu n d e rL o u i s i a n a l a w. Se eRi v e r w o o d I

nt ’lCor p. , 4 20 F. 3da t3 82

- 85
. I n R i verw ood , w e he l d t hat“ t he
on ly r e a so n a b le in te rp re ta tion of th e [p ]olicies is th a t an asbest os- rel ated di sease is n o t a ‘b o d ilyinju r yb ya c c id e n t’ b u t is ra th e ra ‘b o d ilyinju r yb yd i s e a s e .’N o. 08- 30954

Both the definitio n of “Bo dily In jury by Acci dent; Bodily In jury byDisea se” and the 3 thirty-six monthbo dilyin jury bydise ase reporting requirementint he policies at issue in Riverwood are identical to those cont ained in the Employer’s Liab ility policy Chicago i ssued toBuckKreih s. See Riverwood , 42 0 F .3d at 3 80 n.2, 382 -83. Buck Kreihs argu es th at Riverwood is not applicab le eith er b ecau se its interpretation 4 of Loui sian a l aw is contradicted by the hol dings of Louisiana courts or because its hol ding was in conflict with priorFifth Circuit ca se l aw onthe question. However, the Fifth Circuit ca ses Buck Kreih s points to a ddress what th e “b odily inj ury” i s an d whenitoccurs in the cont ext of a sb es to s- relate d di se a se s. See Guarant y Nat ’l Ins . Co. v. Azrock In dus . I nc. , 21 1 F .3d 2 39, 249

- 50 (5thCir. 200 0) (concludin g un der Texas l aw th at person al inj urycaused when indivi dual wa s expo se d toa sb es to s, notwh enth e di se a semanif es te d it self

); Ducre v. E

xecu tive Officers of Halter Marine , 75 2 F .2d 9 76, 993 -94 (5thC ir. 198 5) (holdingth at “exposureth eory” applie d tod ete rm ine wh enin j uryo ccurredinsilico n -expo surec ontext) ; Porte r v. American Optical Group , 64 1 F .2d 1 128 , 11 44-4 5 (5 th Cir. 1 981 ) (rej ectin g “manifestation theory”an d adoptin g “inj urious exposure” th eoryto determine when em p lo yee’s “b odily inj ury” occurre d for ins urance purpose s). Those cases did not a ddress th e question presented in Riverwood , wheth er a sbestos-relate d disease, acknowle dge d to be a “bodilyin jury,” was one “b y disease” or “byaccident.” Further, Buck Kreihs points to no interve nin g change in Louisiana law since Riverwood th at re n dersitshol din gcle arlywron g . 6 A ccord i n gly, th e th i rty-si x m on th e x c lu sion pr ov i sion ap p l i es.” I d. at385. Com pa r i ng t he i ns t antpo l i c i e s t o t ho s e i nt e r pr e t e d i n R i ver w ood , w e f i nd n o 3
m a te ria l d iff

e re n ce s an d th u s th e h o ld in gof R i v e r w o o d c o nt r o l s t hi s a ppe al
. The t hi r t y- s i x m o nt h r e po r t i ng r e qui r e m e nt o f Exc l us i o n ( e ) a ppl i e s . Bec aus e no ne 4 of t he under l yi ng c l ai m s ati ss ue w er e a ss er t ed pr i ort o J anuary 15, 1978, t hi r t ysi x m ont hs af

t ert he pol i c i es ’te r m i nat i on, the di st r i c tcour tcor r ec t l y hel d t hat th ere i s n o cov e r a g e u n d er th e E m p l oy er’ s L i a b i l i ty p oli cy . W e n ow turn to
c ons i dert he C G L pol i c y, w hi c h w e s i m i l ar l y c onc l ude doe s notpr ovi de c ove r age fo rth e a s b e s to s -r e la te d cla im s . 2. A pp l i cabi l i t y of t h e C G L P ol i cy The CG L po l i c y c o nt ai n s s e ve r ale xc l us i o ns o f c o ve r ag e , i nc l udi ng t he f ol l ow i ng: Th i s i nsur ance doe s notappl y:

. . . . (j ) to bo d i l y i nj ur y t o a ny e m pl oy e e of t he i ns ur e d ar i s i ng o ut o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t b y t h e i n s u r e d o r t o a nyN o. 08- 30954

7 obl i gati on of

t h e i n sured to i n dem n i f y an ot h er becau se of dam ages ar i si ng outof

s uch i nj ury. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( “ E xcl us i o n ( j ) ” )

. The CG L po l i c y’ s de f i ni t i o n o f

“ I ns ur e d” i n cl u des B u ck K rei h s and al so “ an y executive of f i cer, di rec to r or s t ockh ol der th e r e o f w h ile a c tin gw ith in th e s c o p e o f h is d u tie s a s s u c h .” Insurers argue that t h e C G L does not provi de coverage to th e asbest osr e l at e d c l ai m s b e c aus e Exc l us i o n ( j ) speci f

i c al l y e xc l ude s b o di l y i nj ur y t o a ny em p l oy ee arisi n g ou t of his em p l oy m en t byB u ck K reih s, an d tha t, i n an y e ve n t, Exc l us i o n ( e ) a l s o e xc l udes c o ve r ag e und e rt hi s po l i c y. Buc k Kre i hs c o nt e nds t h at t h e C G L app l i es because the pol i cy provi des coverage f or acti on s agai n st Buck K r e i hs ’ s ex e c ut i ve s unde rt he def i ni t i o n of

“ I ns ur e d” and, a tt he t i m e t he coverage w as con t ract ed L ou i si an a al l ow ed act i on s by f orm er em pl oyees against th e ire m p lo y e r ’ s e x e c u tiv e o ffic e r s . S ee S an d ers v. A shlandO i l, I n c. , 656 So. 2d 643, 648- 49 (La. C t
. A pp. 1995) (hol di ng si m i l arem pl oye e i nj ury exc l usi on w as i n ap pl i cabl e as t o cl ai m s ag ai n stcom pa n y’ s ow n er because em pl oyees w ere not
e m p l oy ed b y t h e ow n er pe rson a l l y, on l y by th e com p a n y, a n d th e ow n er fe ll
u n der t h e p ol i cy’ s d ef i n i t i on of Insu red)

. B u ck K rei h s asser t s t h at E xcl u si on ( e)
s ho ul d notbe i nt e r pr e t e d t o ex c l ude co ve r ag e unde rt he CG L po l i c y be c aus e t he CG L po l i c y do e s no tado ptt he def i ni t i o ns of

t he E m pl o ye r ’ s Li ab i l i t y po l i c y and t h eref or e Exc l us i o n ( e ) c r e at e s a m bi guit i e s t hatm us tb e r e s o l ve d i n fav o rof coverage. W e ne e d no tde c i de w he t he rt he de f i ni t i o n o f

“ I ns ur e d” a nd t he n- e xi s t i ng Loui si ana ac t i ons agai nstex ec ut ive s pot ent i al l y i m pl i c at e t he C G L pol i c y, bec ause th e C G L i ncl udes E xc l usi on ( e) of t he E m pl oye r ’ s Li abi l i t y po l i c y. A ssu m i n g th a t th e C G L p oli cyis p oten ti a l l y a p p l i ca b l e b eca u se o f th e v i a b i l i ty of a cti ons as se r t ed ag ai nstex ec ut ive of f i c er s of B uck K r ei hs, w e c onc l ude t hat E xcl u si on ( e) excl u des coverage of t h e asbes t os- rel ated em pl oyee cl ai m s un der th is p o lic ya s w e ll.N o. 08- 30954

Inth e E mployers Liab ility p olicy, Coverage Brefers to Employer’s Liab ility, as 5 opposed to C overage A : Workmen’s Compe nsation. 8 T h e C G L p o li c y a ls o in c o r p o r a t e s s e v e r a l e x c lu s io n s fr o m th e E m p lo y e r ’s Li abi l i t y po l i c y, i ncl udi ng: Th i s i nsur ance doe s notappl y:

. . . . (e) U n d er C ov era ge B , to bo d i l y inj u ryby disea se u n l ess p r io r to 5 th ir ty -s ixm o n th s a fte r th e e n d o f th e P o lic yP e r io d w r itt e n cla im is m ad e or sui ti s brough tagainstt h e I n sured fordam ages becau se of s u c h inju r yo rd e a th re s u ltin gth e r e fr o m . . . . Th e CG L pol i c y do es notc on tain a def i ni t i on o f

t he t er m “bodi l y i nj ury by di s e as e ” a nd d o e s no tc o nt ai n a pr ovi s i o n a do pt i ng t he de f i ni t i o ns o f

t he E m p lo y e r ’ s L ia b ility p o lic y . “E ach provi si on i n a contr actm u stbe i n t erpret ed i n l i gh tof t h e ot h er provi si on s s o t h at each i s given t h e m ean i n g sug gest ed by t h e contr actas a w h ole. ” L A
. C IV . C ODE a rt2 050
. W e see n o reason tha t“bodil y i nj u ry by di sease”
s ho ul d b e de f

i ne d o ne w ayi n t he Em pl o ye r ’ s Li ab i l i t y po l i c y anda no t he ri n t he C G L pol i cy, parti cul arl y as B u ck K rei h s urges t h at w e consi der both pol i ci es t o ge t he ra s a c o he s i ve w ho l e . Ar gua bl y t he i nt e r pr e t at i o n of the phr as e a nd
a p p li ca b il ityof R i v e r w o o d i s a c l o s e r que s t i o n i n t he CG L po l i c y be c aus e , unl i ke t h e E m pl oyer’ s L i abil i t y pol i cy, i ti s not t i ed to w orkers c om pen sati on l aw , w h i ch
w a s p artof

t h e rat i on al e of

t h e R i v e r w o o d c o ur ti n a d o p t i nga t e c hni c al defi n i t i on of “ acci den t” over t h e com m on defi n i t i on t o f i n d the asbestos

- rel ated cl a i m s to b e bod i l y i nj u ry “by d i sea se” ra th er th a n “byaccid en t. ” R iv e r w o o dI n t’l Cor p. , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 3 8 3 ; L A
. C IV . C ODE a rt. 2 0 4 7 (requ i ri n g w ord s i n a con tract to be gi ven t h ei r general l y preva i l i n g m ean i n g, except t h at t echn i calt erm s m u st b e g ive n th e ir te ch n ica l m e a n in gw h e n th e co n tra ct in v o lve s a tec h n ica l m a tte r). H o w e ve r , Exc l us i o n ( e ) i s no ta n o r i gi nal , f r e e s t and i ng pr o vi s i o n o f t he CG L, b ut
w as i ns t e ada t t ac he d, a l o ng w i t h e i ght ot h e re xc l us i o ns , v e r ba t i m f r o m t heN o. 08- 30954

9 E m pl oyer’ s Li ab i l i t y po l i c y. I f i n a ddi ng Exc l us i o n ( e ) t o t he CG L po l i c y t he pa rt i e s h a d in te n d e d “b o d il yinju ry b yd ise a se ” to m e a n so m e th in gd iff e re n t from
w h at i tm ean s i n t h e E m pl oyer’ s Liabi l i t y pol i cy fr om w h i ch i tw as adop t ed, t h ey w o u ld h a v e d e fin e d th e p r o v is io n a s n e c e s s a r yto m a k e th a t d is tin c tio n . C

. P u bl i c Pol i cy Fi nal l y, B uck K r ei hs ar gues t hatt he C hi c ago pol i c i es c annotbe i n t erpre t e d t o e xc l ude c overage of t h e f orm er em pl oyees’asbest os c l ai m s because t he e xc l usi ons and l i m i t at i ons t hatI nsur ers i nvoke c onf l i c tw i t h publ i c pol i c y. Insurers c ou n t er t h at B u ck K rei h s m u stb e hel d to a reasona bl e expectat i on of coverage st an da rd i n l i gh t of t h e pl ai n l an gu age of t h e pol i ci es. I n surers f u rt h er n ot e t h at t h ere i s no evi den ce t h at B u ck K rei h s att em pted t o ob t ai n coverage f or lo n g -te r m e x p o s u r e .
“ U nl es s t her e i s a c onf l i c tw i t h st at ut or y pr ovi si ons orpubl i c pol i c y, in s u r e r s a r e e n tit le d to lim it t h e irlia b ility a n d to im p o s e a n d e n fo r c e re a s o n a b le
con d i ti on s u p on th e p oli cyo b l i ga ti on s th ey co n tractu a l l y a ssu m e.” A nder s on v. Ic h inose , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 6 ( La
. 1 9 9 9 )

. Lo u i s i a n a c o u r t s h a v e r ej e c t e d t he proposi t i on t h at t h e app l i cat i on of a d ef i n ed-l en gth report i n g requ i rem en t , such
a s th e th ir ty -s ix -m o n th p e r io d in E x c lu s io n (e ), co n tr a d ic ts p u b lic p o lic y . S ee H u bbs v. A n co I

n su la ti on s, I

n c. , 747 So. 2d 804 , 806- 07 (La. C t
. A pp. 1999) (h ol di n g t h i rt y- si x- m on t h report i n g requ i rem en t i n excl u si on of covera g e f or bo di l y i nj ur y bydi s e as e di d n otv i o l at e pub l i c po l i c y be c aus e t he r e w as no evi den ce t h at i n sured reason ably expect ed coverage f or l on g- t erm exp o su re cl ai m s, rel yi n g on A n d ers on , 7 6 0 S o . 2 d a t 3 0 4 , n .3 , n .4 ); cf

. A n d ers on , 760 So. 2d
a t 3 0 6 -0 7 ( h o l d in gth a t t h e r e w a s n o p u b lic p o lic yv io la tio n b yp r o fe s s io n a ll i abil i t y i n suran ce pol i cy provi si on requi ri n g cl a im s to be m ad e an d reported d u rin gth e p o li cy p e rio d ).N o. 08- 30954

10 I I I
. C ONC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.