Opinion ID: 1808850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Exclusions/Policy Defenses

Text: Lafayette argues that both the trial court and court of appeal erred in finding that the insurance policy provided coverage for plaintiff's business personal property located on the premises. The courts below each ruled that policy exclusions limiting coverage were affirmative defenses and, as such, must be specifically pled per C.C.P. arts. 1003 and 1005. Lafayette, in its answer, stated: Lafayette adopts the terms, conditions, coverages, exclusions, and endorsements of its policy, as if copied herein in extensio, [sic] as a defense to petitioner's claims; Lafayette further pleads all defenses, exclusions, rights and remedies under the policy of insurance issued by Lafayette to petitioner. In discussing the issue of specific pleading of policy exclusions, the court of appeal says that an affirmative defense is one that raises a new matter, which assuming the allegations in the petition are true, constitutes a defense to the action, Sher, 973 So.2d at 54. The court of appeal further states that [r]eliance upon an exclusion in an insurance contract is considered to be an affirmative defense, which must be specifically pleaded in defendant's answer, and that [i]n the absence of such a pleading, no proof can be offered in connection with the exclusion. Sher, 973 So.2d at 54. Further, [t]he purpose of specifically pleading an affirmative defense is to give fair notice to the plaintiff of the nature of defenses, prevents trial by ambush and does not give the defendant an unfair advantage. Sher, 973 So.2d at 54. The court of appeal is correct that Louisiana appellate courts have for decades required that exclusions to insurance contracts be specifically pleaded as affirmative defenses. [5] That, however, is not the issue hererather, the issue is whether, in this case, Lafayette was required to plead each exclusion specifically, rather than by pleading the entire policy, including the exclusions, in extenso. In this specific case, the exclusions are not affirmative defenses. As stated above, an affirmative defense raises a new matter, which assuming the allegations in the petition are true, constitutes a defense to the action. The new matter must be one, however, that is not raised in the plaintiff's petition. E.g., Alexander v. Cornett, 42, 147 (La.App.2d Cir.7/11/07), 961 So.2d 622, 628. Here, plaintiff, in his petition, stated that [a]n all risk policy creates a special type of coverage extending to every conceivable loss or damage, unless clearly, specifically and expressly excluded therein. R. at 3. The policy exclusions, then, are not new mattersthey were first raised in plaintiff's own petition. Further, Lafayette did plead all ... exclusions ... under the policy, including the defenses at issue. The courts below erred in finding that evidence as to Lafayette's policy exclusions should be barred.