INC v. TRICHE (2025)

Relator/defendant, E S & H, Inc., seeks this Court's supervisory review of the trial court's July 7, 2025 judgment which denied its Motion to Strike Paragraph VII of respondents/plaintiffs, Brian Triche and Bernard Triche, Jr.’s, Petition for Damages, in this motor vehicle accident case. For the following reasons, we deny the writ application.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

By way of background, on February 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Damages against relator (E S & H), Earl Maxwell, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, for damages allegedly arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on February 22, 2024. In Paragraph VII of the petition, plaintiffs alleged that at the time of the accident, Zurich American Insurance Company provided a policy of insurance on the vehicle owned by E S & H and operated by Mr. Maxwell, providing coverage for the loss sued upon in the petition.¹ E S & H seeks to strike Paragraph VII of the petition based on La. R.S. 22:1269(B)(4) which provides, in pertinent part:

(4)(a) An insurer shall not be included in the caption of any action brought against the insurer pursuant to this Section. The action shall instead be captioned only against the insured defendant or other noninsurance defendants.

(b) A court shall not disclose the existence of insurance coverage to the jury or mention such coverage in the jury's presence unless required by Code of Evidence Article 411.

* * *

E S & H argues that if Paragraph VII is not struck from the petition, the jury will be able to determine the existence of insurance coverage in this case since at some point during the trial, the jury may be provided access to the petition. E S & H also argues that allowing Paragraph VII to remain in the petition opens the door to plaintiffs’ offering evidence of defendants’ insurance coverage during the liability phase of the trial.

DISCUSSION

Upon review, we find no error in the trial court's judgment which denied the Motion to Strike. As written, La. R.S. 22:1269(B)(4)(a) is clear that an insurer shall not be included in the caption of the action. It is undisputed that in the present case, the insurer is not included in the caption of the action. Further, La. R.S. 22:1269(B)(4)(b) does not specifically prohibit an insurer from being named in the body of the petition. It only provides that “[t]he court shall not disclose the existence of insurance coverage to the jury or mention such coverage in the jury's presence unless required by Code of Evidence Article 411.”

In light of the foregoing, we cannot find that the trial court erred in denying the Motion to Strike.²

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is denied.

WRIT DENIED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Specifically, Paragraph VII of plaintiffs’ Petition for Damages reads as follows:Upon information and belief, it is alleged that at all times material hereto, including but not limited to the date of the subject accident, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY provided a policy of automobile liability insurance on the vehicle owned by E S & H, INC., and operated by EARL MAXWELL, and said policy provided coverage for the type of loss sued upon herein.

2.   In any event, we note that E S & H is not prohibited from filing a pretrial motion in limine to enforce the provisions of La. R.S. 22:1269(B)(4)(b), should such a motion be deemed necessary.

JUDE G. GRAVOIS, JUDGE