Court Opinion

ID: 9392766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-06 00:00:45.715999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.667483
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30354        Document: 00516740082             Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                                                            May 5, 2023
                                       No. 22-30354
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   Hotel Management of New Orleans, L.L.C.,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   General Star Indemnity Company; First Specialty
   Insurance Corporation; Homeland Insurance Company
   of New York,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:21-cv-00876

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         During the COVID-19 pandemic, state and local officials in Louisiana
   ordered non-essential businesses, such as Hotel Management’s properties,
   to shut down temporarily. Hotel Management filed several claims with its

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30354      Document: 00516740082          Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-30354

   insurers, attempting to recover some of its lost income. They denied the
   hotelier’s claims.
          Hotel Management sued its insurance companies for breach of
   contract. The district court granted three motions to dismiss and closed the
   case. It found Hotel Management suffered no covered loss based on our
   precedent in Q Clothier New Orleans, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Insurance
   Company, 29 F.4th 252 (5th Cir. 2022) and dismissed one of the defendants
   under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We AFFIRM.
                                         I
          Hotel Management owns several hotels in the French Quarter and
   downtown New Orleans. The hotelier created an insurance stack by
   contracting with three insurers to protect these businesses. General Star
   issued the primary policy, Homeland provided the first excess policy, and
   First Specialty issued the second excess policy. All three insurance contracts
   were in effect when the COVID-19 emergency began in the spring of 2020.
          The policies covered all “direct physical loss[es]” to Hotel
   Management’s commercial property, subject to various exclusions. In March
   2020, Louisiana and New Orleans issued orders shutting down non-essential
   business activity, including the operation of hotels. Hotel Management
   submitted claims to its insurers for the business interruption the lockdowns
   inflicted on its properties. But the insurance companies denied the claims.
          In response, Hotel Management filed suit in Louisiana state court,
   seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurance policies covered its losses
   and alleging breach of contract. The insurance companies removed the case
   to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved for dismissal. The
   district court granted these motions, dismissing Hotel Management’s claims
   against General Star and Homeland under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

                                         2
Case: 22-30354      Document: 00516740082           Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                     No. 22-30354

   12(b)(6) with prejudice and dismissing Hotel Management’s action against
   First Specialty for forum non conveniens. Hotel Management timely appealed.
                                          II
          We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. IberiaBank
   Corp. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2020). The plaintiff’s
   “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
   a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” to survive a motion to dismiss.
   Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
   550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). We also evaluate the district court’s
   interpretation of an insurance policy de novo. Naquin v. Elevating Boats,
   L.L.C., 817 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2016). “Under Louisiana law, an
   insurance policy is a contract that must be construed using the general rules
   of contract interpretation set forth in the Civil Code.” Anco Insulations, Inc.
   v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 787 F.3d 276, 281 (5th Cir. 2015)
   (footnote omitted). Dismissal is proper if an insurance contract precludes
   recovery. Coleman E. Adler & Sons, L.L.C v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 49 F.4th
   894, 897 (5th 2022).
          When evaluating the district court’s order granting a motion to
   dismiss for forum non conveniens, first “[w]e review de novo the district
   court’s conclusions that the [forum selection clause] was mandatory and
   enforceable.” Weber v. PACT XPP Techs., AG, 811 F.3d 758, 766 (5th Cir.
   2016). Second, we evaluate the trial court’s application of Atlantic Marine’s
   balancing test when it dismisses a case under the forum non conveniens
   doctrine for abuse of discretion. Id.; See Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist.
   Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 62–66 (2013).

                                           3
Case: 22-30354         Document: 00516740082             Page: 4          Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                         No. 22-30354

                                               III
           On appeal, Hotel Management argues 1 that its insurers wrongly
   denied its claims because the language of its underlying General Star policy
   only requires a “loss” to trigger coverage and that the financial hit Hotel
   Management took from the COVID-19 lockdowns certainly is such a “loss.”
   In the alternative, the hotelier argues that we should find the contracts
   ambiguous and adopt its reasonable interpretations of those policies. The
   district court found that the policies were not ambiguous and dismissed two
   of the insurers because Hotel Management had failed to plead a plausible
   claim for breach of the insurance contract. We agree with the district court’s
   analysis.
               “Words and phrases used in an insurance policy are to be construed
   using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning.” Edwards v.
   Daugherty, 883 So. 2d 932, 940–41 (La. 2004); see also La. Civ. Code art.
   2045–47. “When the words of an insurance contract are clear and explicit
   and lead to no absurd consequences, courts must enforce the contract as
   written and may make no further interpretation in search of the parties’

           1
               In its brief, Hotel Management pointed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit of
   Appeal’s opinion in Cajun Conti, L.L.C. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London for the
   proposition that the Louisiana state courts have reached a contrary conclusion regarding
   whether the financial losses caused by the pandemic qualify as a “direct physical loss.” 21-
   0343, 2022 WL 2154863, *5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/15/22), reh’g granted for clarification only,
   *898 21-0343 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/8/22), rev’d, 2022-C-1349 (La. 3/17/23). After filing its
   brief, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana Fourth Circuit’s opinion,
   finding that the closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic did not constitute a direct
   physical loss. See Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriter at Lloyd’s, London, No. 22-C-
   1349 (La. 3/17/23). Consequently, Hotel Management’s argument relying on the now-
   reversed Louisiana appellate court decision is no longer applicable.

                                                4
Case: 22-30354        Document: 00516740082             Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                         No. 22-30354

   intent.” Gorman v. City of Opelousas, 148 So. 3d 888, 892 (La. 2014). Here,
   the Louisiana Supreme Court recently provided guidance on whether
   business closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic could constitute a
   “direct physical loss.” See Cajun Conti, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd’s, London, No. 22-C-1349 (La. 3/17/23). It determined that “COVID-
   19 did not cause direct physical loss of or damage to [covered] property.” Id.
   at p. 5.
              This accords with our Erie-guess2 regarding whether COVID-19 and
   its associated lockdowns caused a “direct physical loss” to an insured in Q
   Clothier. 29 F.4th at 257. We concluded that only “tangible alterations of,
   injuries to, and deprivations of property” qualify as a “direct physical loss.”
   Id. Because the COVID-19 closure orders and the virus particles in and of
   themselves did not cause a “tangible” loss, we held that the policy did not
   cover the loss of business income triggered by the pandemic. Id. at 259. We
   further extended this holding to clauses insuring companies against civil
   authority closures because such provisions “require[] a causal connection
   between loss or damage to property near [a plaintiff’s business] and the civil
   authority orders prohibiting access to its stores.” Id. at 261–62.
              To avoid this holding, now confirmed by the Louisiana Supreme
   Court, Hotel Management argues that its insurance contracts are distinct
   from the one we interpreted in Q Clothier. Specifically, it claims that only a
   “loss” is required under its underlying insurance policy, not a “direct
   physical loss.” So, according to Hotel Management, it should be able to

              2
            Where a state supreme court has yet to interpret policy language, we make an
   “Erie-guess” regarding how that court would read it. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
   64 (1938); see also Carrizales v. State Farm Lloyds, 518 F.3d 343, 345–46 (5th Cir. 2008).

                                               5
Case: 22-30354       Document: 00516740082           Page: 6     Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                      No. 22-30354

   recover its loss of income during the COVID-19 pandemic under the terms
   of its policies, regardless of whether its loss is tangible or not.
          However, to get to this reading of its contracts, Hotel Management
   improperly ignores the second half of its business interruption coverage
   provision in the General Star policy. That provision states:
          BUSINESS INTERRUPTION - This policy shall cover the
          direct physical loss resulting from necessary interruption of
          business conducted by the Insured including all
          interdependent loss of earnings between or among companies
          owned or operated by the Insured caused by loss, damage, or
          destruction by any of the perils covered herein during the term of
          this policy to real and personal property as covered herein.
   (emphasis added). Similarly, the Civil Authority clause provides:
          This policy . . . insures against loss resulting from damage to or
          destruction by the perils insured against, to . . . the actual loss
          sustained for a period not to exceed four consecutive weeks
          when, as a result of a peril insured against, access to real or
          personal property is impaired or hindered by the order of civil
          or military authority . . . .
   (emphasis added). “Peril[s] insured against” by the policy are “all risks of
   direct physical loss of or damage to property.” (deemphasized).
          When we put the Business Interruption and the Civil Authority
   provisions together with the definition for “peril[s] insured against,” we find
   that for Hotel Management to receive payment for a claim based on these
   clauses, it needs to show that its “loss of earnings” or “actual loss” was
   “caused” by a “peril covered,” to wit, a “direct physical loss.” The
   Homeland Insurance policy only applies as broadly as the General Star
   underlying insurance policy. Because the General Star policy is not triggered,
   neither is the Homeland Insurance policy. Consequently, the interpretation
   of this language is not distinguishable from the provisions we interpreted in

                                            6
Case: 22-30354      Document: 00516740082          Page: 7   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-30354

   Q Clothier and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Cajun Conti. See 29
   F.4th at 257–58; see also 2022-C-1349, p. 1, 5 (La. 3/17/23).
          The district court correctly applied Q Clothier and dismissed Hotel
   Management’s claims against General Star and Homeland. As established
   above, the Business Interruption and Civil Authority coverages required
   Hotel Management to demonstrate a “tangible” loss. Q Clothier, 29 F.4th at
   257. By failing to do so, they failed to state a claim on which relief could be
   granted. Adler, 49 F.4th at 898. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment
   granting the dismissal of Hotel Management’s claims against General Star
   and Homeland.
                                         IV
          Hotel Management also challenges the district court’s decision to
   grant First Specialty’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The
   district court found that the First Specialty policy’s forum selection clause—
   designating New York state courts as the required forum for litigation—was
   mandatory and enforceable. After applying the relevant forum non conveniens
   analysis, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice. Hotel
   Management argues on appeal that its policy has conflicting forum selection
   provisions and that the district court contravened Louisiana law by
   dismissing its claims. First Specialty’s brief rebuts these arguments and
   argues that we should affirm the district court’s dismissal.
                                         A
          We first review de novo whether the district court correctly
   determined that the forum selection provision in the First Specialty policy is
   enforceable and mandatory. “Our case law recognizes a sharp distinction
   between mandatory and permissive [forum selection clauses].” Weber, 811
   F.3d at 768. Mandatory forum selection provisions affirmatively require that
   any litigation arising from the contract occur in a specified forum. Id. But

                                          7
Case: 22-30354     Document: 00516740082           Page: 8    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-30354

   when the forum selection clause is permissive, the provision serves only as a
   waiver to any personal jurisdiction or venue objections. Id. A mandatory
   clause requires clear language specifying that litigation must take place in a
   certain forum. Id.
          The forum selection clause in First Specialty’s policy provides:
          The laws of the state of New York . . . shall govern the
          construction, effect, and interpretation of this insurance
          agreement.
          The parties irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of
          the Courts of the State of New York and . . . the parties
          expressly waive all rights to challenge or otherwise limit such
          jurisdiction.
   (emphasis added). Hotel Management does not dispute the mandatory
   nature of this provision on appeal. Instead, it argues that this clause
   contradicts other language in the policy, thereby challenging whether the
   forum selection clause is enforceable. The provision clearly lays out that the
   law and courts of the State of New York have exclusive jurisdiction over any
   litigation stemming from the First Specialty policy. Consequently, we agree
   with the district court that the policy’s forum selection provision is
   mandatory and move on to determine if it is enforceable.
                                         B
          Next, “[w]e apply a strong presumption in favor of enforcing
   mandatory forum selection clauses.” Al Copeland Invs., L.L.C. v. First
   Specialty Ins. Corp., 884 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and
   citation omitted). However, Hotel Management may overcome our
   presumption when it shows the forum selection provision is “unreasonable”
   due to one or more of the following circumstances:
          (1) The incorporation of the forum-selection clause into the
          agreement was the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) the

                                         8
Case: 22-30354      Document: 00516740082          Page: 9   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-30354

          party seeking to escape enforcement will for all practical
          purposes be deprived of his day in court because of the grave
          inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum; (3) the
          fundamental unfairness of the chosen law will deprive the
          plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) enforcement of the clause would
          contravene a strong public policy of the forum state.
   Id. at 543 (alteration adopted) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Hotel Management couches its primary argument under (4). It
   contends that Louisiana has a strong public policy against mandatory forum
   selection clauses that remove its jurisdiction over policies that insure assets
   within the state. Hotel Management points to Louisiana Revised Statute §
   22:868, which requires:
          A. No insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this
          state and covering subjects located, resident, or to be
          performed in this state, or any group health and accident policy
          insuring a resident of this state regardless of where made or
          delivered, shall contain any condition, stipulation, or
          agreement either:
          (1) Requiring it to be construed according to the laws of any
          other state or country except as necessary to meet the
          requirements of the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws
          of such other state or country.
          (2) Depriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or
          venue of action against the insurer.
                                        ...
          D. The provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall not
          prohibit a forum or venue selection clause in a policy form that
          is not subject to approval by the Department of Insurance.
   The district court addressed this argument in its order granting dismissal for
   forum non conveniens, finding that the statute does not apply to First

                                          9
Case: 22-30354     Document: 00516740082           Page: 10    Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-30354

   Specialty’s policy because it is an excess insurance policy not subject to
   approval by the Louisiana Department of Insurance.
          We agree with the district court. Louisiana Revised Statute
   § 22:446(A) exempts excess insurance policies from approval by the state.
   Hotel Management and First Specialty agree that their contract is a surplus
   policy not subject to approval by the Louisiana Department of Insurance. It
   follows that the First Specialty policy’s forum selection clause falls into the
   exemption laid out in Louisiana Revised Statute § 22:868(D). So, Hotel
   Management has failed in its burden to show that Louisiana has a strong
   public policy against the forum selection clause present in its insurance
   contract.
          Hotel Management presents another argument attacking the
   enforceability of the policy’s mandatory forum selection provision. As we
   touched on briefly above, the hotelier argues that conflicting forum selection
   clauses create ambiguity in the policy. To Hotel Management, such
   ambiguity should be interpreted in the insured’s favor. So, says the insured
   here, we should recognize the ambiguity and not enforce the New York forum
   selection clause.
          Paragraph 60 of the First Specialty policy requires:
          JURISDICTION AND SUIT - It is . . . agreed that in the event
          of the failure of [First Specialty] to pay an amount claimed . . .
          [First Specialty] will submit to the jurisdiction of any court of
          competent jurisdiction within the United States . . . . All
          Matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance
          with the law . . . of such court . . . .
   At first blush, Hotel Management seems to have a point. The New York
   forum selection provision certainly contradicts the language of paragraph 60.
   However, when we look at the context in which the New York forum
   selection clause resides, we see that it controls and overrules that paragraph.

                                         10
Case: 22-30354     Document: 00516740082           Page: 11   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                    No. 22-30354

           Immediately above the forum selection clause, the policy informs the
   parties:
           SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ENDORSEMENT
              THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY.
                     PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
   The policy endorsements then modify various provisions in the insurance
   contract, including adding the New York forum selection provision. From a
   plain reading of the title and associated emphasized warning, we find that the
   New York forum selection provision modified and replaced paragraph 60.
   Accordingly, Hotel Management has failed to show that the New York forum
   selection clause is unenforceable due to ambiguity.
                                        C
           Finally, having determined that the forum selection provision is
   mandatory and enforceable, we examine whether the district court abused its
   discretion in dismissing Hotel Management’s claims against First Specialty
   under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The district court correctly
   applied the balancing test laid out in Atlantic Marine. It subsequently
   determined that Hotel Management did not present an exceptional case
   requiring the court to deny the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
   On appeal, Hotel Management reiterates that Louisiana public policy
   strongly favors using Louisiana courts to adjudicate insurance disputes over
   property located in the state and argues that this matter has no ties to New
   York.
           In the absence of a mandatory and enforceable forum selection
   provision, we typically check to ensure the district court did not abuse its
   discretion when it balanced the convenience of the parties with public
   interest considerations. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 62. But here, we have
   determined there is a mandatory and enforceable forum selection clause. So,

                                         11
Case: 22-30354     Document: 00516740082            Page: 12   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                                     No. 22-30354

   we only investigate if the district court abused its discretion in analyzing the
   public interest factors in Atlantic Marine. Id. at 64. Those factors include:
          administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the
          local interest in having localized controversies decided at
          home; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a
          forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action;
          the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in
          the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening
          citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.
   Barnett v. DynCorp Int’l, LLC, 831 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation
   omitted). These factors “justify a refusal to enforce a forum selection clause
   only in truly exceptional cases.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the public
   interest factors. There are no identified administrative difficulties from
   hearing this case in New York. The parties are sophisticated business entities
   advised by counsel based in different states, making New York a logical
   choice of forum that does not implicate localized interests. The contract is
   governed by New York law, meaning the interest in having the trial of a
   diversity case in a forum at home with the law that must govern the action is
   best served by dismissing this case in favor of New York state court. Indeed,
   only the final factor—avoiding burdening citizens from an unrelated forum
   with jury duty—counsels in favor of dismissal.
          The Supreme Court has directed trial courts to retain cases involving
   a mandatory forum selection clause only in extraordinary circumstances.
   Hotel Management has failed to show that the Atlantic Marine public-interest
   factors weigh in favor of finding this matter truly exceptional. Consequently,
   the district court acted well within its discretion when it granted the motion
   to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

                                          12
Case: 22-30354   Document: 00516740082       Page: 13   Date Filed: 05/05/2023

                              No. 22-30354

                                    V
         The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and all pending
   motions are DISMISSED as moot.

                                    13