Ledet v. Fabianmartins Constr. LLC
258 So.3d 1058 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual condominium unit owner is not a third-party beneficiary of the association's master insurance policy with a direct right of action against the insurer unless the policy, read with the governing documents and statutes, demonstrates a manifestly clear intent to confer a direct, certain benefit that is not merely incidental to the contract.
Facts:
- Mark C. Ledet owned a condominium unit in The Carol Condominium and was a member of the Carol Condominium Association, Inc. (the 'Association').
- The Association was required by its governing documents and the Louisiana Condominium Act to obtain a master property insurance policy for the building.
- The Association purchased a commercial property insurance policy from the Insurers, which named only the 'Carol Condominium Association, Inc.' as the insured.
- The premiums for this master policy were paid from common expenses collected from all unit owners, including Ledet.
- In March 2016, a ruptured water pipe during renovation work in another unit caused extensive flooding and water damage to Ledet's unit.
- Ledet submitted a claim for damages to his individual unit directly to the Insurers.
- The Insurers denied Ledet's claim on the grounds that he was not a named insured, additional insured, or third-party beneficiary under the policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark C. Ledet filed suit against the Insurers and other parties in a Louisiana state trial court.
- Ledet's claims against the Insurers were for breach of the insurance contract and bad faith claims adjusting.
- The Insurers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Ledet had no right to sue under the policy because he was not a named insured.
- The trial court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ledet's claims against them with prejudice.
- Ledet, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, where the Insurers were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual condominium unit owner qualify as a third-party beneficiary of a condominium association's master insurance policy, thereby giving the owner a direct right of action against the insurer for damages to their unit?
Opinions:
Majority - Molaison, J.
No. An individual condominium unit owner does not qualify as a third-party beneficiary of the association's master insurance policy and lacks a direct right of action against the insurer. The court reasoned that to establish a third-party beneficiary relationship (a 'stipulation pour autrui' in Louisiana law), the claimant must satisfy a three-prong test from the case 'Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2'. First, the policy must show a 'manifestly clear' intent to benefit the third party. Here, the policy, the Louisiana Condominium Act, and the condominium's Declaration all stipulated that loss proceeds were payable to the Association as trustee, not directly to unit owners, which negates a clear intent for direct benefit. Second, the benefit must be certain. The court found any potential payment to an owner was uncertain and contingent upon a surplus existing after the Association completed all repairs, making the benefit speculative. Third, the benefit must not be a mere incident of the contract. The court concluded the primary purpose of the policy was to fulfill the Association's obligation to insure the property, not to directly benefit individual owners; any benefit to Ledet was merely incidental to this primary purpose. Because Ledet failed all three prongs of the test, he could not sue the Insurers directly.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal framework governing master insurance policies for condominiums in Louisiana, clarifying that the condominium association is the sole party with standing to bring a claim against the insurer. It reinforces the association's role as a fiduciary or trustee for the unit owners in the claims process, thereby preventing a multiplicity of lawsuits from individual owners against an insurer for a single covered event. The ruling protects insurers from direct liability to non-parties and channels all disputes through the named insured—the association. This creates a clear procedural path: unit owners must seek recourse from their association for damage claims, and if dissatisfied, their legal action would be against the association for breach of fiduciary duty, not against the insurer for breach of contract.
Unlock the full brief for Ledet v. Fabianmartins Constr. LLC