WILTON v. NICKS REFRIGERATION SALES AND SERVICE INC (2023)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Reversed and remanded. Defendant, United Fire & Indemnity Company, is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. While the insurance policy excludes coverage for “[f]aulty, inadequate or defective [d]esign, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, [or] compaction,” it further provides that “[a]ny ensuing loss to property ․ not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered.” Plaintiffs argue the damage at issue here was an “ensuing loss.” Summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion, under which coverage could be afforded. Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480 (La. 4/11/94), 634 So.2d 1180, 1183. This standard is not met here. There are questions of fact as to whether any of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs constitute an “ensuing loss.” The denial of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is affirmed. The grant of summary judgment in favor of United Fire & Indemnity Company is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Hughes, J., dissents.