BRITTANY LONDON INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF HER MINOR CHILDREN QUINCY DAVIS JR AND BRAELYNN DAVIS AND SHELIA DAVIS v. JAMBALAYA CAPITAL OF THE WORLD GONZALES LOUISIANA INC DOING BUSINESS AS THE JAMBALAYA FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION THE CITY OF GONZALES LOUISIANA AND TROYLIN PERKINS (2025)

Third-party plaintiff/appellant, Jambalaya Capital of the World-Gonzales, Louisiana, Inc., d/b/a the Jambalaya Festival Association (“Jambalaya Capital”), appeals the trial court's September 10, 2024 judgment which granted third-party defendant/appellee's, Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company's (“Ategrity”), Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Jambalaya Capital's claims against Ategrity without prejudice.¹ For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 12, 2021, Quincy Jarrell Davis was hired as an independent contractor to provide “professional music broadcast services” during the annual Christmas holiday parade sponsored by Jambalaya Capital in Gonzales, Louisiana. Mr. Davis's music station was on the top tier of a two-tier parade float designed and decorated to carry parade participants.² As Mr. Davis faced rearward during the parade, he was unable to observe the path of travel and was struck on the back of his head by a large, low-hanging tree branch. He was then knocked from the float to the street, sustained a severe head injury, and eventually died ten days later. These facts are not in dispute.

A Petition for Damages was filed on October 20, 2022 by Brittany London, Mr. Davis's former wife and sole legal guardian of Mr. Davis's minor children, as well as Shelia Davis, Mr. Davis's mother, naming as defendants Jambalaya Capital, the City of Gonzales, and Troylin Perkins.³ Jambalaya Capital answered the petition, generally denied its allegations, and further asserted a third-party demand against Ategrity, claiming it “had in full force and effect a policy of general liability insurance issued to” Jambalaya Capital and that the policy covered “any and all acts of negligence pertinent to this cause․” Jambalaya Capital further alleged Ategrity “owes [Jambalaya Capital] a duty to defend this matter, and as such, [Jambalaya Capital] is entitled to a defense to be paid under the terms of the policy issued.” In response to the third-party demand, Ategrity answered and admitted it issued Policy No. 01-C-PK-P20024745-0 (the “Policy”) to Jambalaya Capital for the period of June 5, 2021 to June 5, 2022, yet alleged that the terms of the Policy do not provide coverage for Mr. Davis's death and that it does not owe a duty to defend.

Later, on January 22, 2024, Ategrity filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing its policy excludes coverage on behalf of Jambalaya Capital based on two specific Policy provisions. First, Ategrity cited the Special Event Participant Exclusion, which prohibits coverage for “bodily injury” to any “participant” arising out of “[t]he practicing for or participation in any athletic event, contest, game, demonstration, exhibition, theatrical or musical performance, race or show[.]” Although the terms of the Policy do not define “demonstration,” “exhibition,” or “show,” Ategrity claimed that a “parade,” such as Jambalaya Capital's Christmas holiday parade at issue, qualifies as and fits within the definitional purview of a “demonstration,” “exhibition,” and/or “show,” such that coverage should be excluded.

Second, and notwithstanding the Special Event Participant Exclusion, Ategrity cited the Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises, which precludes coverage for “[b]odily injury [․] occurring on any premises other than the designated premises shown in the Schedule above[.]”. The Designated Premises Limitation does not identify a particular location, but states, “[i]f no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.” Since the Policy's Declarations generally lists 118 Francois, Gonzales, LA, 70737 as an address “own[ed], rent[ed] or occup[ied]” by Jambalaya Capital, and as Mr. Davis's injury occurred away from 118 Francois, but rather “along a route northbound on Irma Boulevard, before its intersection with Cornerview Road,” Ategrity claimed this limitation excludes coverage for Jambalaya Capital.

Ategrity's motion came for hearing on August 12, 2024, at which time the trial court took the matter under advisement.⁴ Later, on September 10, 2024, a judgment granting Ategrity's motion was signed by the trial court, along with incorporated reasons for judgment. After outlining the pertinent facts, burden of proof, and interpretation of insurance contract provisions, the trial court stated in its written reasons:

Considering the applicable jurisprudence cited above, as well as the clarity of the definitions of ‘bodily injury’ and ‘participant,’ this [c]ourt finds that there is no genuine issue that [Mr. Davis] sustained ‘bodily injury’ while riding in the Christmas Parade and while acting as a ‘participant’ in a ‘demonstration,’ and/or ‘exhibition and/or ‘show,’ as contemplated by the Special Event Participant Exclusion. Accordingly, this [c]ourt finds that Ategrity met its burden of proving that [Jambalaya Capital's] claims fall under the Special Event Participant Exclusion under the policy and therefore, Ategrity is entitled to summary judgment.

Of note, since the trial court found merit to Ategrity's argument regarding the Special Event Participant Exclusion, its written reasons did not address Ategrity's argument regarding the Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises. It is from this judgment that Jambalaya Capital timely filed the instant appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Jambalaya Capital presents two assignments of error, both generally claiming the trial court incorrectly interpreted Ategrity's Policy:

1. The trial court committed manifest error interpreting the policy of insurance to enlarge its provisions beyond what was reasonably contemplated by the policy terms and failing to strictly construe against the insurer the provision seeking to narrow the insurer's obligation.

2. The trial court committed manifest error by granting summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under the policy of insurance when the language of the exclusion was subject to two or more reasonable interpretations requiring the court to apply the interpretation which favors coverage.

DISCUSSION

Motions for Summary Judgment

Appellate courts review the granting of a summary judgment de novo using the same criteria governing the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(3). The summary judgment procedure is expressly favored in the law and is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of non-domestic civil actions. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(2). The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial. Hines v. Garrett, 2004-0806 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 769 (per curiam). After an opportunity for adequate discovery, summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(3).

Interpretation of Insurance Contracts

Interpretation of an insurance policy ordinarily involves a legal question that can be properly resolved by a motion for summary judgment. Green v. Johnson, 2016-1525 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/10/18), 241 So.3d 1188, 1191. An insurance policy is a conventional obligation that constitutes the law between the insured and the insurer, and the agreement governs the nature of their relationship. Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 2006-1827 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 634, 638, citing, La. Civ. Code art. 1983. An insurance policy is a contract, which must be construed employing the general rules of interpretation of contracts. Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc., 958 So.2d at 638, citing, La. Civ. Code arts. 2045-2057. If the insurance policy's language clearly expresses the parties’ intent and does not violate a statute or public policy, the policy must be enforced as written. However, if the insurance policy is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations, then it is considered ambiguous and must be liberally interpreted in favor of coverage. Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc., 958 So.2d at 638. Words and phrases used in an insurance policy are to be construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning, unless the words have acquired a technical meaning. Nielson v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2014-0614 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/7/14), 167 So.3d 697, 699, writ denied, 2014-2564 (La. 3/13/15), 160 So.3d 964. However, it is well-settled that unless a statute or public policy dictates otherwise, an insurer may limit liability and impose reasonable conditions or limitations upon its insureds. In these circumstances, unambiguous provisions limiting liability must be given effect. With that stated, we note that the insurer bears the burden of proving that a loss falls within a policy exclusion. See Allen v. Southwest Builders, L.L.C., 2022-1344 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/24/23), 372 So.3d 32, 37-38.

Special Event Participant Exclusion

The Special Event Participant Exclusion (the “Exclusion”) provides:

This policy does not apply to ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage’ or ‘personal and advertising injury’ to any ‘participant’ arising out of:

1. The practicing for or participation in any athletic event, contest, game, demonstration, exhibition, theatrical or musical performance, race or show covered by this policy; or

2. The use of any amusement device operated by you or on your behalf.

For purposes of this endorsement, ‘participant’ shall include performers, stagehands, volunteers, drivers, setup crew, pit-crew and other persons located in the pit area, security personnel, mechanics, stewards, officials or attendants, or any other person taking part in paragraphs 1. or 2. of this endorsement.

Neither Jambalaya Capital nor Ategrity dispute that Mr. Davis sustained “bodily injury” while acting as a “participant” in the Christmas holiday parade, as these phrases are defined within the Policy and the Exclusion. As such, the question before us is whether the Christmas holiday parade as sponsored by Jambalaya Capital qualifies as one of the enumerated events specifically excluded from coverage under the Policy.

There is no dispute that the word “parade” is not included in the language of the Exclusion and is not an enumerated event identified by Ategrity to which the Exclusion may obviously be applied. In fact, while Ategrity's Policy contains many technical and defined terms throughout, including for the term “participant” directly within the Exclusion itself, none of the specifically excluded events are defined within the Exclusion. Moreover, the language of the Exclusion does not include general terms or provide language which would indicate that the list is not exhaustive. Therefore, a “parade” can only be included as an event to which the Exclusion applies if the general and ordinary meaning of the enumerated events, specifically a “demonstration,” “show,” or “exhibit” includes a “parade.”

Dictionaries are a valuable source for determining the common and approved usage of words. Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2023-01596 (La. 6/28/24), 387 So.3d 515, 520. Merriam-Webster ⁵ defines “demonstration” as “an act, process, or means of demonstrating to the intelligence,” “an outward expression or display,” “a show of armed force,” or a “public display of group feelings toward a person or cause.” “Show” is defined by Merriam-Webster, in the form of a noun, as “a demonstrative display,” “outward appearance,” “something exhibited especially for wonder or ridicule,” “a large display or exhibition arranged to arouse interest or stimulate sales,” “a theatrical presentation,” an “enterprise [or] affair,” and “third place at the finish (as of a horse race).” Lastly, “exhibition” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an act or instance of exhibiting,” “a grant drawn from the funds of a school or university to help maintain a student,” and “a public showing (as of works of art, objects of manufacture, or athletic skill).” See “demonstration,” “show,” and “exhibition,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2025 available at http://www.merriam-webster.com. We note that all of the definitional entries for “demonstration,” “show,” or “exhibition” contain multiple meanings depending upon the context within which they are used, yet none of the definitions use the word, or contain reference to, a “parade.” Conversely, Merriam-Webster defines “parade” as “a public procession [․] usually to mark a holiday or event [․ especially] one involving many different people or groups who travel down a street usually on foot or in vehicles,” “a usually long series of people or things,” “the ceremonial formation of a body of troops before a superior officer,” “a pompous show,” or “a place for strolling (such as a public walk or square).” See “parade,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2025 available at http://www.merriam-webster.com. Moreover, the Merriam-Webster thesaurus does not identify “demonstration,” “show,” or “exhibition” as synonyms for “parade” in its form as a noun. See “parade,” Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus available at http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Louisiana law is clear that an insurance contract should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or strained manner under the guise of contractual interpretation to enlarge or to restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by the unambiguous terms or achieve an absurd conclusion. The rules of construction do not authorize a perversion of the words or the exercise of inventive powers to create an ambiguity where none exists or the making of a new contract when the terms express with sufficient clearness the parties’ intent. Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2002-1637 (La. 6/27/03), 848 So.2d 577, 580. Further, as noted above, liability insurance policies should be interpreted to effect, rather than to deny coverage. Allen, 372 So.3d at 37. Moreover, exclusionary clauses in insurance contracts are strictly construed against the insurer. Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 94-1469 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/5/95), 656 So.2d 643, 647, writ denied, 95-1797 (La. 11/3/95), 661 So.2d 1389.

Accordingly, we find that, since a “parade” was not expressly listed among the enumerated list of events prohibited from coverage under the Exclusion, as a “parade” is not one of the “plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning[s]” of “demonstration,” “show,” or “exhibition” as set out in well-known and heavily cited dictionaries and thesauruses, such as Merriam-Webster, and in light of the public policy of interpreting insurance contracts to effect coverage, we find the trial court erred in concluding that a “parade” falls within the non-covered events enumerated in the Exclusion, and specifically that a “parade” is a “demonstration,” “show,” or “exhibition.” As such, we find that Ategrity cannot rely on this Exclusion to deny coverage to Jambalaya Capital.

Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises 6

The Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises (the “Limitation”) states:

This insurance does not apply to:

1. “Bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” occurring on any premises other than the designated premises shown in the Schedule above; or

2. “Bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” that occurs away from the designated premises caused by supervision, hiring, training, organizing, or any other activities conducted on or from the designated premises shown in the Schedule above.

Under the section labeled “Designated Premises” on the Limitation, no address is provided. Although the Limitation states, “[i]f no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement[,]” the only location listed on the Common Policy Declaration is a post office box identified as a mailing address for Jambalaya Capital. Under the General Liability Policy and identified in the section labeled “LOCATION OF ALL PREMISES YOU OWN, RENT OR OCCUPY[,]” an address of 118 Francois, Gonzales, LA 70737 is provided. However, the Policy does not limit or define the Declarations to this address and the Declarations do not provide any statement that any of the information in the Declarations is applicable to the Limitation. The Limitation provides that clear information will be readily ascertainable from the Declarations that directly link the two together, without assumptions, yet we cannot find such a connection. Moreover, also contained within the Declarations page are ISO General Liability Class Codes, identifying the various types of coverage and locations the Policy is applicable to, with one particular code stating: “Social Gatherings and Meetings - on premises not owned or operated by the insured.” We find this reflects the intent of Jambalaya Capital to obtain liability coverage for events it sponsors occurring in multiple locations.

Ambiguous policy provisions are generally construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage. Cadwallader, 848 So.2d at 580. The determination of whether a contract is clear or ambiguous is a question of law. Id. The lack of clear identifying information on the Declarations to satisfy the Designated Premises Location Limitation, combined with the civic and social nature of Jambalaya Capital's events and activities held in multiple locations in Gonzales, Louisiana, we find the Limitation is ambiguous and must be construed against Ategrity. As such, and similar to the Special Event Participant Exclusion, we find that Ategrity cannot rely on this Limitation to deny coverage to Jambalaya Capital.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the trial court's September 10, 2024 judgment, which granted Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed the claims asserted by Jambalaya Capital of the World-Gonzales, Louisiana, Inc. d/b/a the Jambalaya Festival Association against Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company, is reversed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to third-party defendant/appellee, Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company.

REVERSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that the trial court's September 10, 2024 judgment is presumed to be without prejudice. When a judgment is silent as to whether it is being dismissed with or without prejudice, the dismissal must be without prejudice. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Co., Inc., 2016-0230 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 219 So.3d 349, 379, writ denied, 2017-00915 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So.3d 833.

2.   We are aware of Jambalaya Capital's claim that Mr. Davis was not hired on its behalf, but rather by Lavette Watts, the owner of the particular float Mr. Davis was riding. Jambalaya Capital argues Mr. Watts was not employed by Jambalaya Capital, nor had any authority to act on its behalf. Further, Jambalaya Capital avers Mr. Watts designed the float and the location of Mr. Davis's music station.

3.   By way of a consent judgment dated March 9, 2023, the claims of Brittany London in her individual capacity, as well of the claims of Shelia Davis for wrongful death and survival action, were dismissed with prejudice.

4.   A certified copy of the Policy was referenced in Ategrity's motion for summary judgment, which is proper under La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(4)(a).

5.   In support of its definitional argument that a “parade” qualifies as a “demonstration,” “show,” or “exhibition,” Ategrity cites in its brief to various online sources, such as https://www.wordhippo.com, https://www.wordreference.com, https://www.powerthesaurus.org, and https://www.freethesaurus.com. While we recognize the numerous online resources available to ascertain the meaning of various words, Louisiana courts routinely cite and refer to Merriam-Webster as such authority, and we will as well. See Kazan v. Red Lion Hotels Corporation, 2021-01820 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 267; Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 2022-01349 (La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 922; Hidden Grove, LLC v. Brauns, 2022-00757 (La. 1/27/23), 356 So.3d 974; Wainwright obo Wainwright v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2019-0019 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/27/19), 291 So.3d 1080.

WOLFE, J.