THERIOT, J.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana
Case No. 2013-0000820 The Honorable Brenda Bedsole Ricks, Judge Presiding Kenneth M. Willis
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiffs/
2 Appellants
Shenetta West, individually and on
behalf of the minor child, Davonte
West, and James Dorsey John R. Walker
Covington, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/
1 Appellants
Clean Rite Septic Tank Services,
LLC, Courtney Milazzo, John
Milazzo, and Canal Indemnity
Insurance Company David J. Schexnaydre
Mandeville, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Progressive Paloverde Insurance
Company BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ. THERIOT, J.
The plaintiffs, Shenetta West, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Davonte West, and James Dorsey (collectively referred to as "the Wests"), and the defendants, Clean Rite Septic Tank Service, LLC ("Clean Rite"), Courtney Milazzo, John Milazzo, and Canal Indemnity Insurance Company, have appealed the partial summary judgment of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court that dismissed the Wests's petition for damages as to the defendant/appellee, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company (Progressive). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Shenetta West hired Clean Rite to service the septic tank at her home in Independence, Louisiana. On October 18, 2012, John Milazzo, husband of the owner of Clean Rite, Courtney Milazzo, arrived at the Wests's home with another employee to perform services on the septic tank. Mr. Milazzo and the employee arrived at the Wests's home in a truck owned by Clean Rite. This "septic truck" was equipped with a pumping system that could extract sewage from a septic tank and transport it to other locations for disposal.
According to the Wests's petition, as Mr. Milazzo and the employee serviced the septic tank, as alleged in the Wests's petition, they discharged raw sewage into the Wests's home, causing extensive damage to the home and causing health problems for Ms. West and her family. The Wests filed suit against CleanRite, the Milazzos, and two insurers of Clean Rite, Canal Indemnity Company (Canal), which issued a policy of general liability insurance, and Progressive, which issued a commercial auto liability policy covering the septic truck. Through discovery, the Wests learned that in the auto policy, Progressive allegedly agreed to indemnify Clean Rite for damages caused by the septic truck.
On March 30, 2015, Progressive filed a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming that the automobile insurance policy does not provide coverage for the type of damage that occurred in the Wests's home. A hearing on the motion was held on September 8, 2015. The trial court granted the motion. A judgment was signed on September 24, 2015, dismissing the Wests's claim against Progressive with prejudice. It is from this judgment that the Wests, along with Clean Rite, the Milazzos, and Canal appeal.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
All appellants allege two assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in determining that the Progressive policy did not afford coverage for the Wests's claims.
2. Alternatively, the trial court erred in not finding that there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment in favor of Progressive.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court applies a de novo standard of review in considering lower court rulings on summary judgment motions; thus, we use the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Bufkin v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC, 2014-0288 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So.3d 851, 854. A court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; La. C.C.P. art. 966(B).
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966 was amended and reenacted by Acts 2015, No. 422, § 1, with an effective date of January 1, 2016. The amended version of article 966 does not apply to any motion for summary judgment pending adjudication or appeal on the effective date of the Act; therefore, we refer to the former version of the article in this case. See Acts 2015, No. 422, §§ 2 and 3. --------
DISCUSSION
At issue in the instant case is whether Progressive's commercial automobile policy on the septic truck covers the kind of damage that occurred at the Wests's home. Under the "exclusions" section of the policy, certain operations are deemed as not covered. The pertinent exclusions in the policy's "Liability to Others" section are as follows:
Operations
Bodily injury,
property damage, or
covered pollution cost or expense arising out of the operation of:
a. any equipment listed in Paragraphs b. and c. of the definition of auto; or
b. machinery or equipment that is on, attached to, or part of, a land vehicle that would qualify under the definition of mobile equipment if it were not subject to a compulsory or financial responsibility law where it is licensed or principally garaged.
The policy's "General Definitions" section includes the definition of "auto" as follows:
"
Auto" means a land motor vehicle or
trailer designed for travel on public roads, or any other land vehicle that is subject to a compulsory or financial responsibility law or other motor vehicle insurance law in the state or province where it is licensed or principally garaged. It does not include
mobile equipment. Self-propelled vehicles with the following types of permanently attached equipment are
autos, not
mobile equipment:
. . .
c. air compressors, pumps and generators, including spraying, welding, building cleaning, geophysical exploration, lighting and well-servicing equipment.
Under the policy's "Liability to Others" section, Progressive agreed to pay damages for "bodily injury, property damage, and covered pollution cost... because of an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that insured auto." Under the exclusions section, bodily injury, property damage, and/or pollution cost are excluded from coverage when they are caused by the operation of equipment such as a pump permanently attached to a vehicle, or by machinery that is part of mobile equipment.
When the pump allegedly caused sewage to back up into the Wests's home, the septic truck was parked. Even accepting the Wests's version of events arguendo, the backup of sewage into the Wests's home occurred strictly from the operation of the pump. The stationary vehicle did not cause, nor could it have prevented the damage caused to the Wests's home.
The Wests allege the policy is confusing, since the liability section of the policy covers the damage to their home, while the exclusions section denies it. An insurance policy susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations is ambiguous, which means the policy must be interpreted in favor of coverage. Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 2006-1827 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 634, 638. For a genuine ambiguity to exist, the insurance policy must be not only susceptible to two or more interpretations, but the alternative interpretations must be equally reasonable. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 93-0911 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So.2d 759, 770.
We find no ambiguity in this policy, as there is only one clear interpretation. The policy clearly indicates that bodily injury, property damage, or pollution costs will be covered, unless such damages were caused by the operation of equipment, whether permanently attached to the covered vehicle or not. The Wests's damages allegedly were caused by the operation of the pump on the septic truck, not by the truck itself. We find it unreasonable to conclude that Progressive intended to cover damage or loss in an automobile insurance policy occurring from the use of equipment either affixed or transported by the vehicle while the vehicle is stationary, along with covering damage caused directly from the use of the vehicle itself. The trial court did not err in finding that Progressive's policy does not cover the damages claimed by the Wests. Additionally, since there is no ambiguity in the insurance policy, and it is undisputed that the septic truck was parked throughout the incident, we find no genuine issues of material fact in the instant case.
DECREE
The partial summary judgment granted by the Twenty-First Judicial District Court dismissing with prejudice the claims of the appellants, Shenetta West, individually and on behalf of the minor child, Davonte West, and James Dorsey, against the appellee, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company, is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed equally to all appellants.
AFFIRMED.