Case Name: Michael Craig BOUDREAUX, Plaintiff, v. Rodney VERRET & Par Industries, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellants, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1982-07-28
Citations: 422 So. 2d 1167
Docket Number: No. 82-121
Parties: Michael Craig BOUDREAUX, Plaintiff, v. Rodney VERRET & Par Industries, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellants, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SWIFT, DOUCET and LAHAYE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 422
Pages: 1167–1173

Head Matter:
Michael Craig BOUDREAUX, Plaintiff, v. Rodney VERRET & Par Industries, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellants, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 82-121.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
July 28, 1982.
On Rehearing Nov. 17, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 29, 1982.
Roy, Forrest & Lopresto, Alex A. Lopres-to, III, New Iberia, for defendants-appellants.
Gachassin & Capretz, Nicholas Gachassin, Clement Story, III, Voorhies & Labbe, E. Greg Voorhies, Lafayette, Richard B. Nev-ils, Baton Rouge, Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, McNamara & Abell, Timothy J. McNamara, St. Paul Bourgeois, IV, of Allen, Gooch and Bourgeois, Lafayette, Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Barsh & Hunter, David Frohn, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellee.
Shelton & Legendre, Thomas R. Shelton, Lafayette, for plaintiff.
Before SWIFT, DOUCET and LAHAYE, JJ.

Opinion:
LAHAYE, Judge Pro Tem.
Whether or not the defendant-insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, is entitled to a summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims against it is the sole issue on appeal. The lower court held that it was, and granted summary judgment accordingly. We reverse.
Plaintiff, Michael Craig Boudreaux, filed suit alleging he received personal injuries due to the fault of several defendants, including Par Industries, Inc. (Par), Rodney Verret (Par's President) and their insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G).
USF & G issued a Workmen's Compensation and Employers' Liability policy covering Par. It also issued a Comprehensive General Liability policy covering Par and Rodney Verret as an additional insured by virtue of his position as an executive officer of Par. USF & G filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the policies excluded coverage in those situations where the plaintiff was entitled to workmen's compensation benefits. It argued that the plaintiff in this case was an employee of Par, that he was injured while in the course and scope of his employment, and that he was entitled to compensation. Therefore, USF & G contended that the policies' exclusion provisions precluded coverage of Par or Verret.
USF & G also contends that as a matter of law, plaintiff's exclusive remedy against his employer and an executive officer of his employer is for workmen's compensation benefits. In addition it claims that if Par and Verret could not be held liable as a matter of law, then neither could their insurer, USF & G.
Par and Verret oppose the motion for summary judgment arguing that the policies are ambiguous and because there are genuine issues of material fact yet to be resolved. Thus, they argue that summary judgment in favor of USF & G was improperly granted, and they appeal on that basis.
In Lee v. Allstate Insurance Company, 402 So.2d 181 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981), the court said at page 181:
"The law provides that a motion for summary judgment should be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.C.C.P. art. 966. The burden of showing that there exists no genuine issue as to material fact is upon the mover for summary judgment. Any doubt is resolved in favor of a trial on the merits and against the granting of a summary judgment. Emp. Surplus Line Ins. v. City of Baton Rouge, 362 So.2d 561 (La.1978) and Morgan v. Matlack, Inc., 342 So.2d 167 (La.1977)."
USF & G failed to file the insurance policies or copies of these policies in the record of this suit. This court in Richard v. Hebert's Creamery, Inc., 381 So.2d 945 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), when faced on appeal with a similar situation wherein the insurer was granted a summary judgment, stated: "Inasmuch as we have concluded that neither the insurance contract nor a certified true copy of it are in the record, the motion for summary judgment granted in favor of mover, ., must be reversed." A similar result under similar circumstances was also reached by our brothers on the First Circuit in the Lee case, supra.
We conclude that USF & G, by failing to file its insurance policies or certified copies of them in the record, has failed to carry its burden of proof, and summary judgment in its favor should not have been rendered.
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and set aside; USF & G's motion for summary judgment is denied; and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings according to law and consistent with the views expresed herein. All costs incurred in connection with USF & G's motion for summary judgment are taxed against it; all other costs are to await final disposition of this matter.
REVERSED, RENDERED AND REMANDED.