AGHA HOLDINGS LLC v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (2026)

Plaintiff, Agha Holdings, LLC, and third parties, World Insurance Associates, LLC (“WIA”) and Dustin Ritch, appeal the trial court's May 12, 2025 judgment granting a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, dismissing Agha Holdings’ claims with prejudice, and denying Agha Holdings’ cross motion for partial summary judgment. After de novo review, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Citizens is a statutorily created nonprofit corporation that operates insurance plans, which function exclusively as residual market mechanisms to provide essential property insurance for residential and commercial property, “solely for applicants who are in good faith entitled, but are unable, to procure insurance through the voluntary market.” La. R.S. 22:2291. Simply, Citizens is an insurer of last resort, which provides basic property insurance for property that cannot be insured through the voluntary market. See La. R.S. 22:2291, 22:2292(9), and 22:2302(A).

The exhibits attached to the cross motions and oppositions establish the following undisputed material facts. WIA is an insurance broker doing business in Louisiana. On August 12, 2024, Agha Holdings retained WIA and Ritch, WIA's employee, to solicit insurance quotes. On August 29, 2024, WIA submitted an application to Citizens for windstorm insurance for a hotel owned by Agha Holdings located in Houma. Agha Holdings had not previously been insured by Citizens.

On August 29, 2024, Citizens issued a “Coverage Confirmation Letter” that pertinently stated,

This letter is issued as a matter of information to confirm the following coverage(s) are effective as of August 30, 2024 provided [Citizens] receives the required minimum payment for the premium for such coverage(s) no later than the close of business on September 13, 2024.

The Confirmation Letter reflected that the FAIR Plan ² policy premium and fees totaled $59,182.00, including a non-refundable $65.00 application fee. The Confirmation Letter concluded, “Do not accept copies of this letter as proof of insurance if it appears to be altered in any way.”

On September 3, 2024, Danny Agha, sole owner of Agha Holdings, and a representative of WIA signed Citizens’ Commercial Application for insurance, which pertinently stated that the required minimum premium payment due (or “down payment”) was $16,835.00. The same day, Citizens notified WIA through the E.P.I.C.³ communication system that payment of the $65.00 application fee could not be processed due to WIA's use of an incorrect routing number. On September 10, 2024, WIA received funds from a finance company on behalf of Agha Holdings sufficient to pay the premium and fees quoted by Citizens. On September 11, 2024, Agha Holdings’ hotel suffered catastrophic damage during Hurricane Francine.

By the close of business on September 13, 2024, Citizens had not received the $65.00 application fee or any portion of the premium down payment. WIA contacted Citizens on September 15, 2024 and requested that it accept a late premium payment for the prospective policy and apply the policy retroactively to August 30, 2024. Citizens declined and subsequently denied Agha Holdings’ insurance claim for Hurricane Francine damage, concluding no insurance policy was issued insuring the hotel.

Mr. Agha filed a complaint with the Louisiana Department of Insurance in the fall of 2024, alleging that he purchased a policy from Citizens but the policy was cancelled due to non-payment. Citizens responded, stating that its records indicated the application fee was not paid and the policy never became active because funds were not posted to the quoted policy. The Department of Insurance found no violation of the policy or of the insurance statutes.

Agha Holdings filed a petition for declaratory judgment and damages against Citizens in November 2024, seeking a declaration that Citizens issued a policy and was obligated to provide insurance coverage in accordance with the coverage limits specified in the Confirmation Letter. Mr. Agha also sought a declaration that Citizens was required to provide coverage due to the application of Governor Jeff Landry's Declaration of Emergency for Emergency Rule 49 issued just prior to Hurricane Francine's arrival.⁴ Agha Holdings sought damages for breach of contract, bad faith penalties and attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1892 and 22:1973, and alleged promissory estoppel and/or detrimental reliance. Citizens answered, denying Agha Holdings’ allegations and specifically denying that any policy premium was paid by or on behalf of Agha Holdings and asserting that no policy was ever issued. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment, both seeking a legal determination regarding whether coverage exists.

In its motion for partial summary judgment, Agha Holdings sought judgment finding Citizens is obliged to provide insurance coverage for the damage sustained by the hotel during Hurricane Francine. Agha Holdings advanced three arguments: (1) WIA received timely payment of the policy premium and acted as Citizens’ agent pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1564 for purposes of receiving and remitting policy premiums, (2) the Confirmation Letter was an insurance binder, and (3) Citizens was barred from cancelling the binder coverage or policy pursuant to Emergency Rule 49.⁵

Citizens moved to dismiss all claims asserted by Agha Holdings, maintaining no policy was issued because Agha Holdings and WIA failed to comply with Citizens’ statutorily required insurance application and premium payment process.⁶ See La. RS. 22:2302(A) and La. Admin Code tit. 3 7, Pt. XIII, § 12101, et seq (cited herein as “Regulation 87”). Among other things, Regulation 87 sets forth standards and procedures regarding Citizens’ application process for use by authorized insurance producers. Regulation 87, § 12101.

Each party opposed the other's motion, and the trial court heard argument on April 30, 2025. Ruling from the bench, the trial court granted Citizens’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims asserted by Agha Holdings, and denied Agha Holdings’ motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court determined that the Citizens-specific statutes and provisions of the Louisiana Administrative Code applied, rather than the general provisions of the Insurance Code,⁷ particularly La. R.S. 22:1564. The trial court concluded that Agha Holdings failed to comply with the requirements to obtain coverage with Citizens. A written judgment in conformity with this ruling was signed on May 12, 2025.

Agha Holdings timely appealed. WIA and Ritch, who are not parties to the trial court proceeding, also appealed the May 12, 2025 judgment, asserting they could have intervened in the trial court proceeding and are, thus, entitled to an appeal. See La. C.C.P. arts. 2086 and 1091; see also Amedee v. Aimbridge Hospital, LLC, 2021-01906 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 321, 325-26.

BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The appellants, collectively “Agha Holdings,” assert that the trial court erred by granting Citizens’ motion and denying Agha Holdings’ motion for partial summary judgment.⁸ A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3).

The initial burden of proof is on the mover. La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). At trial, Agha Holdings will have the burden of proving the existence of a policy and coverage. See Tunstall v. Stierwald, 2001-1765 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d 916, 921. Thus, as mover, Agha Holdings has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact remains. Only when Agha Holdings makes this showing does the burden shift to Citizens to present evidence demonstrating a material factual issue remains. See Bond v. Louisiana Purchase Equestrian Estates L.L.C., 2020-0699 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/19/21), 318 So.3d 200, 205, writ denied, 2021-00424 (La. 5/11/21), 315 So.3d 872.

As mover who will not bear the burden of proof at trial, Citizens is not required to negate all essential elements of Agha Holdings’ claim. Instead, it is required to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to Agha Holdings’ claim. Thereafter, the burden shifts to Agha Holdings to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that Citizens is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1); Bond, 318 So.3d at 205.

Appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Cunningham v. Borden Dairy Co. of Texas, LLC, 2024-0105 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/20/24), 405 So.3d 1027, 1036, writ denied, 2024-01575 (La. 4/1/25), 404 So.3d 657. Where the facts are undisputed and the matter presents a purely legal question, summary judgment is appropriate. Leisure Recreation & Entertainment, Inc. v. First Guaranty Bank, 2021-00838 (La. 3/25/22), 339 So.3d 508, 517.

APPLICATION OF LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES 22:1564

The primary issue presented in this appeal is whether, under the undisputed material facts, Citizens received timely payment of the policy premium. Agha Holdings argues that WIA was Citizens’ statutory agent pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1) for the acceptance of the premium payment and that WIA received the premium payment before the deadline set forth in the Confirmation Letter. Therefore, Agha Holdings contends Citizens received timely payment. Citizens maintains that La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1) does not apply because it contemplates a specific sequence of events, which did not occur here. We agree with Citizens.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1564(A)(1), contained within the Insurance Code, states,

Any insurer which issues or delivers a policy or contract of insurance pursuant to the application or request of a producer who is not authorized to represent said insurer as a producer shall be deemed to have authorized such producer as producer of record to act on the insurer's behalf. The payment to such a producer shall be payment to the insurer with all resultant obligations and duties.

An “insurance producer” is “a person required to be licensed under the laws of this state to sell, solicit, or negotiate insurance” and includes an “insurance broker.” La. R.S. 22:1542(6); Regulation 87, § 12107. Every insurance producer duly licensed to sell property and casualty insurance in this state may sell insurance policies that are issued by Citizens through its FAIR and Coastal Plans. La. R.S. 22:2313(A); Regulation 87, § 12107(A); Bank of Zachary v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 2019-0605 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/22/20), 2020 WL 5651862, *7 (unpublished).

Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1564(A)(1) clearly and unambiguously requires that the insurer must first issue or deliver a policy or contract of insurance before a producer will be deemed to be the insurer's agent.⁹ Agha Holdings relies only on the text of La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1) that purportedly makes WIA Citizens’ agent for receipt of payment, while disregarding the remaining language of that provision. Additionally, the cases cited by Agha Holdings concern the application of La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1) in factually distinguishable situations and involve insurers other than Citizens. In each of these cases, an insurance policy was issued first, before the producer became the insurer's statutory agent.

For instance, Agha Holdings relies on Alexander v. Terra Nova Ins. Co., Ltd., 2006-1348 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/7/07), 953 So.2d 152. There, the insurer issued a renewal binder pursuant to the agency/agent's application or request then issued the renewal policy a few days later. Alexander, 953 So.2d at 156. By taking these steps, the insurer clearly authorized the agency/agent to act on its behalf and caused an agency relationship to come into existence for the collection of premiums as contemplated by La. R.S. 22:1150 (predecessor to La. R.S. 22:1564). Alexander, 953 So.2d at 156.

Agha Holdings also cites DeSoto Parish School Board v. Ins. Co. of North America, 572 So.2d 310 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990), writ denied, 575 So.2d 368 (La. 1991), wherein the insurer issued a binder to the School Board, then issued the policy. The School Board paid the premium to its broker, who fraudulently failed to remit all payments to the insurer. The court concluded that, pursuant to La. R.S. 22:1180 (predecessor to La. R.S. 22:1150 and La. R.S. 22:1564), the broker was the insurer's agent, and the premium payments made by the School Board to the broker were payments to the insurer. DeSoto, 572 So.2d at 314.

It is undisputed that Citizens never issued or delivered a policy to WIA. Consequently, WIA was not deemed to be Citizens’ agent for purposes of accepting payment of the premium. Additionally, WIA was not Citizens’ authorized agent.

We further find the application of La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1) does not lead to absurd consequences. Instead, it reasonably requires more than a cursory exchange of information between the insurer and producer to create an agency relationship. Conversely, applying La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1) to create an agency relationship under the facts of this case would lead to absurd consequences. Citizens would be obligated to provide insurance coverage for catastrophic hurricane damage sustained by property it unknowingly insured, owned by an entity with which it had no prior relationship. Citizens would be bound to pay Agha Holdings’ claims, although it was unaware that Agha Holdings intended to accept the quote and never delivered a policy or received any portion of the premium.

This application of La. R.S. 22:1654(A)(1) is even more absurd under the facts of this case when the statutes and regulations specifically applicable to Citizens are considered. The eligibility criteria and procedure for applying for a policy with Citizens is set forth in La. R.S. 22:2302. If Citizens determines the property is insurable after receiving an application, Citizens, “upon receipt of the premium or such portion thereof as is prescribed for either the Coastal Plan or the FAIR Plan, shall cause to be issued the appropriate policy of essential property insurance for a term not exceeding one year.” La. R.S. 22:2302(C). Additionally, Regulation 8 7 requires that an insurance producer, like WIA, “shall complete and submit the on-line application for property and casualty insurance coverage to Citizens and shall comply with all requirements of the application process that have been established by Citizens.” Regulation 87, § 12115(A). Regarding payment of premiums, Regulation 87, § 12123(A) states,

An insurance producer shall submit to Citizens an electronic payment, via the E.P.I.C. system, of the $65 non-refundable application fee in order to receive a coverage confirmation letter. The policyholder, or the producer or mortgage company on behalf of the policyholder, has 14 days from the effective date of the coverage confirmation [l]etter to submit a minimum payment of 25 percent of the quoted policy premium plus 100 percent of all policy fees and taxes. If the minimum payment is not received by Citizens by the fourteenth day, the quote will expire. The E.P.I.C. system will allow payment electronically with either a credit card or an electronic transfer of funds (ETF). Both methods require a completed Funds Authorization Form to be submitted to Citizens via the E.P.I.C. system. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, La. R.S. 22:2302 and Regulation 8 7 specifically provide that Citizens will not issue a policy before it receives 25 percent of the quoted premium. Under the clear wording of La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1), the statute applies when the opposite is true - the policy is issued first, then the producer (broker) becomes the insurer's agent for receipt of the premium payment. Applying La. R.S. 22:1564 under the facts presented, where Citizens issued no policy, would conflict with La. R.S. 22:2302 and Regulation 87. See Battaglia v. LeBlanc, 2021-0011 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/17/21), 328 So.3d 467, 470, writ denied, 2021-01025 (La. 11/3/21), 326 So.3d 886 (When two statutes deal with the same subject matter, and if there is a conflict between them, then the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue prevails over the more general statute.) Consequently, we find no merit in Agha Holdings’ argument that the policy premium was timely paid to Citizens through WIA by operation of La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1).¹⁰

Confirmation Letter as Insurance Binder

Agha Holdings also maintains the trial court erred by ruling that the Confirmation Letter did not create an insurance binder. The Insurance Code explains that a “binder” is used to bind insurance temporarily pending the issuance of the policy. La. R.S. 22:870. A binder is not an insurance policy but is generally taken to be a contract providing interim insurance effective as of the date of the application and terminating at either completion or rejection of the principal policy. All Crane Rental of Georgia, Inc. v. Vincent, 2010-0116 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/10/10), 47 So.3d 1024, 1029, writ denied, 2010-2227 (La. 11/19/10), 49 So.3d 3 87.

Agha Holdings asserts that the Confirmation Letter bound coverage because it provided all essential details of an insurance policy: the name of the insured, policy date, insured location, type of policy, effective dates, servicing agent, and coverage amounts. Agha Holdings also notes the Confirmation Letter put third parties on notice not to accept the letter as proof of coverage if altered, indicating it was otherwise sufficient to prove coverage. Conversely, Citizens’ Senior Underwriting Director attested that Citizens does not issue insurance binders; instead, insurance coverage is contingent upon receipt of the minimum payment of 25 percent of the quoted policy plus all fees and taxes. As Citizens points out, the statutes specifically governing Citizens do not provide for binders. Further, Regulation 87, § 12123(A) states that, if the minimum payment is not received by Citizens by the fourteenth day, the quote will expire.

The Confirmation Letter mirrors this statutory scheme. It unambiguously states that it was issued “as a matter of information” to confirm the specified coverage was effective August 30, 2024, provided that Citizens received the minimum premium payment no later than September 13, 2024. The Confirmation Letter created a conditional obligation for Citizens to provide coverage if Agha Holdings paid the specified premium portion no later than the specified date. See La. C.C. art. 1767 (If the obligation may not be enforced until the uncertain event occurs, the condition is suspensive.) Until Agha Holdings satisfied this condition, there was no binding agreement between the parties for Citizens to provide insurance coverage. See Holmes v. Jefferson Pilot Financial Ins. Co., 39,721 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/29/05), 907 So.2d 185, 190, writ denied, 2005-1985 (La. 2/3/06), 922 So. 2d 1185 (finding no life insurance coverage existed because the decedent failed to satisfy the conditions of coverage set forth in the conditional receipt issued by the insurer). We agree with the trial court that the Confirmation Letter was not an insurance binder obligating Citizens to provide coverage for Agha Holdings’ Hurricane Francine loss.

Notice of Cancellation and Emergency Rule 49

In the final issues presented, Agha Holdings asserts that, if this court concludes that Citizens owed an obligation to provide coverage, it could not cancel or terminate coverage without first complying with the statutory notice requirements set forth in La. R.S. 22:1267. Agha Holdings similarly asserts that if coverage exists, Emergency Rule 49 barred Citizens from cancelling or terminating coverage. Because we find Citizens did not owe a duty to provide coverage for Agha Holdings’ property damage caused by Hurricane Francine, we do not address these arguments.

We also note that Agha Holdings did not assign error to the portion of the trial court's judgment dismissing its claims for promissory estoppel and/or detrimental reliance. Thus, we likewise do not address the dismissal of these claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's May 12, 2025 judgment granting a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, dismissing Agha Holdings, LLC's claims with prejudice, and denying Agha Holding, LLC's cross motion for partial summary judgment. All costs of this appeal are assessed against appellants as follows: 50% to Agha Holdings, LLC and 50% to World Insurance Associates, LLC and Dustin Ritch.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Citizens issues two types of policies, referred to as the “Coastal Plan” and the “FAIR Plan.” See La. R.S. 22:2295.

3.   E.P.I.C. is Citizens’ policy management and claim computer system or its successor. La. Admin. Code.tit. 37, Pt XIII, § 12107.

4.   Agha Holdings also filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against WIA and Ritch assigned Docket No. 2:24-cv-02708.

5.   Agha Holdings offered Emergency Rule 49 and the affidavits of Mr. Agha and Ann Casey, WIA's Director of Finance (Premium Accounting), along with documents establishing the timeline and facts set forth above. These documents were also attached to Agha Holdings’ opposition to Citizens’ motion for summary judgment.

6.   Citizens offered the affidavit of Patricia Weidie, Citizens’ Senior Underwriting Director, along with attachments establishing the timeline and facts set forth above, as well as Agha Holdings’ petition, and Emergency Rule 49.

7.   Engagement in the business of insurance in Louisiana must be in conformity with the Insurance Code. La. R.S. 22:12.

8.   The denial of a motion for partial summary judgment is an interlocutory judgment and is appealable only when expressly provided by law. However, where there are cross motions for summary judgment raising the same issues, this court may review the denial of a summary judgment in addressing the appeal of the grant of the cross motion for summary judgment. See Poule D'Eau Properties, L.L.C. v. TLC Properties, Inc., 2022-1011 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/24/23), 367 So.3d 764, 770, writ denied, 2023-00433 (La. 9/6/23), 369 So.3d 1267.

9.   It is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that when a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written, and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. La. C.C. art. 9; McLane Southern, Inc. v. Bridges, 2011-1141 (La. 1/24/12), 84 So.3d 479, 483.

10.   Because the undisputed material facts do not satisfy the requirements of La. R.S. 22:1564(A)(1), we do not answer the broader question of whether this statute could ever apply to Citizens. See In re Media Access to Virtual Zoom Courtroom, 2023-00172 (La. 5/16/23), 360 So.3d 474, 475 (Courts will not decide abstract or hypothetical controversies or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies.)

HAGGERTY, J.