Court Opinion

ID: 9368186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 01:00:29.757016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.103650
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30325         Document: 00516633219             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                 February 2, 2023
                                        No. 22-30325                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   Argonaut Insurance Company,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:21-CV-1602

   Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Argonaut Insurance Company (“Argonaut”) appeals the summary
   judgment dismissing its claims for contribution and defense costs against
   Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (“ASIC”). Concluding the district
   court correctly interpreted ASIC’s policy as not covering the vehicular
   accident at issue, we affirm.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30325       Document: 00516633219             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                        No. 22-30325

                                             I.
           The parties stipulated to the following facts. Darrell Esnault, a
   commercial truck driver, operates a truck that Triple G Express, Inc.
   (“Triple G”) leased from Double S Transportation, LLC (“Double S”). The
   truck is ordinarily garaged at Esnault’s residence. After making his final
   delivery at a New Orleans railroad terminal on the afternoon of February 22,
   2019, Esnault began driving the truck to a nearby store to buy groceries. 1
   Seeing a friend on the way, Esnault stopped, exited the vehicle, chatted for
   about five minutes, and continued on. Before he got to the store, however, he
   realized he did not have enough money, so he turned back home. When he
   was about four blocks away from home, however, Esnault decided to buy
   cigarettes at a nearby gas station. Making a U-turn, Esnault collided with
   another car driven by Christian Davis. The accident occurred about 22
   minutes after Esnault left the railroad terminal.
           Argonaut and ASIC each separately insure Triple G for the truck
   Esnault was driving. Argonaut’s policy is a general commercial auto policy,
   while ASIC’s policy is a narrower Non-Trucking Liability Coverage
   (“NTL”) policy. NTL policies typically provide liability coverage only when
   a commercial truck is used for non-business purposes. See Progressive
   Paloverde Ins. Co. v. Estate of Jenkins, No. 19-12840, 2021 WL 638119, at *3
   (E.D. La. Feb. 18, 2021) (discussing NTL policies). ASIC’s NTL policy
   states it provides coverage only for “[l]osses that occur . . . when a Covered
   Truck is Non-Trucking.” The term “Non-Trucking” is defined in relevant
   part to mean when the truck is “operating solely for personal use unrelated
   to the business of the Motor Carrier.” The policy further explains when a
   truck is “not Non-Trucking,” including when the truck is “returning to the

           1
            When Esnault left the terminal, the truck was “bobtail”—meaning the trailer was
   no longer attached.

                                              2
Case: 22-30325        Document: 00516633219            Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                        No. 22-30325

   Truck’s Primary Garage Location subsequent to delivering a load.” As
   noted, the truck’s primary garage location was Esnault’s residence.
         Davis filed a state court lawsuit against Esnault, Double S, State Farm,
   Triple G, and Triple G’s two insurers—Argonaut and ASIC—for his
   injuries. ASIC declined to defend Triple G and Esnault, 2 believing its NTL
   policy did not cover the accident. Argonaut proceeded alone and settled
   Davis’s suit on behalf of Esnault, Triple G, and Double S. Pursuant to an
   assignment of Davis’s rights, Argonaut then brought the present suit in
   federal district court against ASIC, claiming that ASIC’s NTL policy applied
   and that ASIC should have provided a defense.
         ASIC moved for summary judgment, arguing its NTL policy was
   inapplicable because at the time of the accident Esnault was not driving the
   truck “solely” for personal use. The district court agreed. The court thus
   held that ASIC’s NTL policy unambiguously precluded coverage. But even
   if the policy were ambiguous, the court found Argonaut’s interpretation of
   the policy unreasonable because it would make a driver “non-trucking” for
   any kind of a stop or detour before the route had concluded.
         Accordingly, the court granted ASIC summary judgment and
   dismissed Argonaut’s claims with prejudice. Argonaut timely appealed the
   summary judgment, which we review de novo. XL Ins. Am., Inc. v. Turn Servs.,
   L.L.C., 37 F.4th 204, 206 (5th Cir. 2022); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                                             II.
         Argonaut argues the district court erred because, at the time of the
   accident, Esnault had finished his delivery and was using the truck for the

         2
             Esnault is included as a “Named Insured” under Triple G’s policy.

                                              3
Case: 22-30325         Document: 00516633219              Page: 4       Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                          No. 22-30325

   “solely personal activities” of buying groceries and cigarettes. 3 Argonaut
   thus asserts Esnault was “non-trucking” within the meaning of ASIC’s NTL
   policy when he struck Davis’s car. We disagree.
           The district court correctly interpreted the NTL policy and applied it
   to the stipulated facts. 4 The policy defines “non-trucking” as being operated
   “solely for personal use unrelated to the business of the Motor Carrier.” As
   the district court intuited, the policy thereby “contemplates that a truck may
   simultaneously be put to both business and personal use.” That is what
   happened here. According to the stipulated facts, when Esnault collided with
   Davis, he was engaged in both personal and business pursuits: he was buying
   groceries and cigarettes (personal) while returning the truck to its primary
   garage location (business). So, Esnault was not using the truck solely for
   personal use. Moreover, the policy specifies that a driver is “not Non-
   Trucking” when, inter alia, the truck is “returning to [its] Primary Garage
   Location subsequent to delivering a load.” Again, that is what happened
   here. It is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, Esnault had not yet
   returned the truck to his home, its primary garage. This supports the district
   court’s conclusion that Esnault was “not non-trucking” when he collided
   with Davis.
           On this last point, Argonaut claims there is a fact issue concerning
   whether Esnault “intended to garage his vehicle when he arrived home” or

           3
             Argonaut does not renew on appeal its arguments in the district court based on
   the policy’s alleged ambiguity, nor its arguments premised on the policy’s definition of
   “Route Deviation.” Argonaut has therefore abandoned those arguments and we need not
   consider them.
           4
             All agree that Louisiana law applies and that under Louisiana law courts read
   insurance policies under the normal rules of contract interpretation. See Q Clothier New
   Orleans, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 29 F.4th 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Supreme
   Servs. & Spec. Co. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 2006-1827 (La. 5/22/07); 958 So. 2d 634, 638).

                                                4
Case: 22-30325       Document: 00516633219            Page: 5     Date Filed: 02/02/2023

                                       No. 22-30325

   instead continue with his personal errands. But Argonaut never raised this
   argument in the district court and cannot do so for the first time on appeal.
   See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021). In any event,
   the parties stipulated for summary judgment purposes that “[i]f the accident
   had not occurred, Esnault would have returned to his residence . . . where he
   garaged the tractor.” Argonaut cannot take back that stipulation now.
          Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly granted
   ASIC summary judgment. 5
                                                                       AFFIRMED.

          5
           Because we resolve the appeal on this basis, we need not reach Argonaut’s
   arguments concerning whether it properly sought contribution from ASIC under Louisiana
   law.

                                             5