Court Opinion

ID: 9669375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:54:18.893659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:29.712933
License: Public Domain

Currie, C. J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). While I concur in that part of the court’s opinion which holds that appellant Travelers Indemnity Company cannot be named as a party defendant under our direct-action statutes under the instant facts, I must respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion which holds there is no coverage under appellant’s policy. I would follow the precedent of Kendrick v. Mason (1958), 234 La. 271, 99 So. (2d) 108. Here the property of the gas company, the gas main, was actually damaged by the “Hy-Hoe” excavating operations which set in motion the chain of causation which later resulted in the explosion. I cannot see how products liability coverage would be applicable to this type of situation. Here the product was the trench which was excavated and filled. Nothing later happened with respect to that after completion of the work to cause the explosion.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Fairchild and Mr. Justice Beilfuss join in this opinion.