The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, has held that a bodily injury exclusion in a carrier’s errors and omissions policies barred coverage for a third-party claim by another carrier and a third-party demand by an insured, because the claims arose from or were related to bodily injury. O’Neal v. Foremost Ins. Co., 2025 WL 1749368 (La. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2025). The court concluded that the errors and omissions policies’ plain language was unambiguous, and that the inclusion of a bodily injury exclusion in an errors and omissions policy did not violate any Louisiana statute or public policy.
The plaintiff was injured after a tree fell from an investment adviser’s property and struck her vehicle. The plaintiff sued the investment adviser and its liability carrier, asserting that the investment adviser had actual or constructive knowledge of the defective condition of the tree but failed to address it. The investment adviser’s liability carrier filed an amended third-party demand against the property management company, the individual property manager, and their professional liability carrier. The property management company subsequently filed a third-party demand against the professional liability carrier seeking a defense and coverage for the third-party demand brought against it by the liability carrier.
The liability carrier filed a partial motion for summary judgment. The professional liability carrier opposed the motion and filed its own motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims because the applicable errors and omission policies contained a bodily injury exclusion that barred coverage for claims “alleging, arising from or related to . . . bodily injury.”
The liability carrier argued that its third-party claim arose out of the insured property management company’s and property manager’s breach of contract, not bodily injury. Rejecting this assertion, the Court of Appeal agreed with the professional liability carrier’s reasoning that because the policies expressly excluded claims “alleging, arising from or related” to bodily injury there was no coverage, as it was undisputed that the plaintiffs’ claim arose out of or at least related to bodily injury sustained from the fallen tree. The appellate court thus concluded that the language of the bodily injury exclusion clearly applied. It also reiterated the reasoning of another Louisiana case, Hann v. Cusimano, 86 So.3d. 84 (La. Ct. App. 2012), which considered identical policy language and similar facts and determined that there is nothing in the law or public policy that would require an errors and omissions policy to cover bodily injuries.
[View source.]
