Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

CAMERON SOULE                      *      NO. 2022-CA-0352

VERSUS                             *
                                          COURT OF APPEAL
WOODWARD DESIGN +                  *
BUILD, LLC, EAGLE                         FOURTH CIRCUIT
SCAFFOLDING AND                    *
EQUIPMENT COMPANY,                        STATE OF LOUISIANA
INC., EAGLE ACCESS, L.L.C.,     *******
ABC INSURANCE COMPANY,
XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY
AND DEF INSURANCE
COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED WITH:                         CONSOLIDATED WITH:

DUANE DEAN, HUSBAND OF/AND                 NO. 2022-CA-0353
CHRISTY DEAN

VERSUS

WOODWARD DESIGN + BUILD, L.L.C.,
EAGLE ACCESS, L.L.C., EAGLE
SCAFFOLDING AND EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED WITH:                         CONSOLIDATED WITH:

MICHAEL HABISREITINGER, JR.                NO. 2022-CA-0354

VERSUS

EAGLE ACCESS, LLC, EAGLE
SCAFFOLDING AND EQUIPMENT CO.,
INC., & WOODWARD DESIGN + BUILD,
LLC
CONSOLIDATED WITH:                         CONSOLIDATED WITH:

JARRELL JONES                              NO. 2022-CA-0355

VERSUS

WOODWARD DESIGN + BUILD, LLC,
EAGLE ACCESS LLD, AND EAGLE
SCAFFOLDING AND EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, INC.
CONSOLIDATED WITH:                         CONSOLIDATED WITH:

MELVIN BARNICA, AMALIA                     NO. 2022-CA-0356
FERRETIZ BARRON WIFE OF/AND
CIRIACO PINA, AND FRANCISCO
CASTILLO

VERSUS
EAGLE SCAFFOLDING AND
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.; EAGLE
ACCESS, LLC; WOODWARD DESIGN +
BUILD, LLC; ABC INSURANCE
COMPANY; XYZ INSURANCE
COMPANY; 123 INSURANCE
COMPANY, AND JOHN DOE

                               APPEAL FROM
               CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
                       NO. 2018-00935, DIVISION “F”
                        Honorable Jennifer M Medley,
                                  ******
                           Judge Karen K. Herman
                                  ******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Karen K. Herman)


Joseph S. Piacun
PIACUN LAW FIRM, LLC
1340 Poydras Street
Suite 2100
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Bruce C. Dean
DEAN LAW FIRM, LLC
1212 Magistrate Street
Chalmette, Louisiana 70043

William J. Guste, III
GUSTE, BARNETT, SCHLESINGER & ALPAUGH, LLP
639 Loyola Avenue
Suite 2130
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: MICHAEL HABISREITINGER, JR


Richard A. Chopin
Justin M. Chopin
THE CHOPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
650 Poydras Street
Suite 1550
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: CAMERON SOULE


J. Casey Cowley
CASEY COWLEY, LLC
620 North Carrollton Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: MELVIN BARNICA, AMALIA
FERRETIZ BARRON, CIRIACO PINA, & FRANCISCO CASTILLO


Michael S. Brandner, Jr.
Scot P. Koloski
MIKE BRANDNER AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
3621 Veterans Memorial Blvd.
Metairie, Louisiana 70002

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: BERNARD CURTIS AND
BRENDA CURTIS


Leo J. Palazzo
Jason J. Markey
Mario A. Arteaga, Jr.
PALAZZO LAW FIRM
732 Behrman Highway
Suite F & G
Gretna, Louisiana 70056

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: CHAD BONDLOW SR.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, CHAD
BONDLOW, JR.


Brian Gerard Shearman
John H. Denenea, Jr.
SHEARMAN-DENENEA, LLC
4240 Canal Street
Second Floor
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS, DUANE DEAN AND CHRISTY
DEAN


Todd Charles Comeaux
COMEAUX LAW FIRM
2354 S. Acadian Thruway, Suite C
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: BERNARD AND BRENDA
CURTIS
Mark E. Morice
MORICE LAW FIRM, LLC
1132 Derbigny Street
Gretna, Louisiana 70053

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: PAUL IMBRENDA


Kristopher T. Wilson
Shaundra M. Schudmak
LUGENBUHL WHEATON PECK RANKIN & HUBBARD
601 Poydras Street
27th Floor
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE
CO.


                                   AFFIRMED
                                   DECEMBER 21, 2023
KKH
TFL
SCJ
         Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions appeal the September 20, 2021

 Judgment1 granting the Re-Urged Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of

 defendant, The Burlington Insurance Company (“TBIC”). For the reasons set forth

 below, we affirm.

 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This appeal arises out of a July 28, 2017 accident at the Standard

 Condominium construction project (“Project”), when a construction elevator/hoist

 fell, injuring several workers, including plaintiffs. Woodward Design + Build,

 LLC (“Woodward”) served as the general contractor on the Project. The

 elevator/hoist was provided by Eagle Access, LLC/Division Management, LLC

 (“Eagle”), pursuant to a rental agreement and a Subcontract with Woodward.

         As required by the owner of the Project, Woodward obtained a Contractor

 Controlled Insurance Program (“CCIP”) policy or “Wrap-Up” policy from

 Houston Casualty Company (“HCC”) for the insurance on the Project. Woodward

 retained Wrap-Up Insurance Solutions, Inc. as its Wrap-Up Administrator of the

 CCIP.



 1 On September 21, 2021, the trial court signed a duplicate judgment.



                                                1
       Eagle’s Subcontract with Woodward provides that Eagle agreed to “furnish

all labor, equipment, miscellaneous materials, and supervision for

MAN/MATERIAL HOIST ERECTION & DISMANTLE,” including

“[p]reventative maintenance for 12-month rental period.” The Subcontract

excludes the “bare rental” for the hoist, for which Eagle would provide a separate

purchase order.

       Regarding insurance, Section 13.1(6) of Eagle’s Subcontract states, in

pertinent part, that Woodward “has arranged for the Project to be insured under a

controlled insurance program (the “CCIP” or “Wrap-Up”).” This Section of the

Subcontract further provides that the CCIP shall provide “commercial general

liability insurance and excess liability insurance, in connection with the

performance of the Work at the Project site.”

       In connection with the accident, plaintiffs filed suit against Woodward,

HCC, Eagle, and TBIC, Eagle’s own commercial general liability (“CGL”)

insurer.2 Defendants also filed cross-claims and/or third-party demands against

each other, some of which are still pending.

       TBIC denied coverage for Eagle, maintaining that its CGL policy contained

an endorsement, or “Wrap-Up Exclusion” which precludes coverage to Eagle for

all claims arising from the Project. The Wrap-Up Exclusion, which is central to

the issue in this appeal, provides, in pertinent part, that coverage is excluded in

“[a]ll locations where you perform or have performed work that is or was to be

insured under a consolidated (wrap-up) insurance program as described below.”

(Emphasis added).



2 Plaintiffs’ lawsuits were consolidated in the trial court.



                                                   2
      The following exclusion is added to paragraph 2., Exclusions of
      COVERAGE A - BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
      LIABILITY (Section I - Coverages):

      This insurance does not apply to “bodily injury” or “property damage”
      arising out of either your ongoing operations or operations included
      within the “products-completed operations hazard” at the location
      described in the Schedule of this endorsement, as a consolidated
      (wrap-up) insurance program has been provided by the prime
      contractor/project manager or owner of the construction project in
      which you are involved.

      This exclusion applies whether or not the consolidated (wrap-up)
      insurance program:

      (1) Provides coverage identical to that provided by this Coverage Part;
      (2) Has limits adequate to cover all claims; or
      (3) Remains in effect.

      Woodward and HCC previously filed cross-motions for summary

judgment seeking to determine whether Eagle was an insured under the

CCIP policy. In a judgment rendered December 30, 2020, the trial court

granted Woodward’s motion and denied HCC’s motion, finding that Eagle

was insured under the CCIP policy. This Court denied writs. Soule v

Woodward Design + Build, LLCS, unpub., 2021-0015, (La. App. 4 Cir.

2/3/21).

      The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Eagle was not insured under

the CCIP policy. Soule v Woodward Design + Build, LLCS, 2021-00322

(La. 5/11/21),
315 So.3d 858
. Regarding Eagle’s involvement in the CCIP,

which is pertinent to the issue raised in this appeal, i.e., the application of the

TBIC policy Wrap-Up Exclusion, the Supreme Court stated:

            A requirement of the insurance policy Woodward obtained
      from HCC was that Woodward contract with an approved provider to
      perform “Contractor Enrollment.” Pursuant to this requirement,
      Woodward retained an approved provider, Wrap Up Insurance
      Solutions, Inc. (“Wrap Up Administrator”). The Wrap Up
      Administrator sent an email to Eagle specifically advising that

                                            3
       insurance coverage was not automatic and sent the required
       enrollment form to Eagle.

               The Wrap Up Administrator followed up by sending a second
       email to Eagle after it formally entered into the subcontract with
       Woodward. Eagle declined to comply with the request, stating that
       Eagle would “not participate in paying any wrap insurance premiums”
       as Eagle had its own insurance. Accordingly, the Wrap Up
       Administrator advised Woodward that Eagle was unwilling to enroll.
       This information was provided to Woodward’s senior project
       manager, who indicated he did not see any reason to include Eagle
       because “[t]hey are an equipment supplier and their only on site work
       is to erect and dismantle the man/material hoist.”

               Subsequently, after commencing work on the project, Eagle
       sent an enrollment form to the Wrap Up Administrator. The Wrap Up
       Administrator advised Woodward of Eagle's action and requested
       advice on how to proceed. The Woodward representative replied that
       a decision had been made earlier to exclude Eagle from coverage.
       Accordingly, on April 24, 2017, the Wrap Up Administrator sent a
       letter advising Eagle that it was not covered “under the General
       Liability Contractor Controlled Insurance Program for the trade of
       Hoist Rental and Service - the Standard Project.” A copy of this letter
       was sent to Woodward. The accident forming the basis of this
       litigation occurred approximately three months later on July 28, 2017.

Id. at pp. 2-3, 315 So.3d at 859.

       The Court went on to state:

             The undisputed facts demonstrate that this [enrollment]
       procedure was not followed by Eagle. As a result, the Wrap Up
       Administrator never issued a certificate of insurance to Eagle and
       instead sent a letter to Eagle, with a copy to Woodward, advising
       Eagle it was not covered “under the General Liability Contractor
       Controlled Insurance Program for the trade of Hoist Rental and
       Service - the Standard Project.”

Id. at p. 4, 315 So.3d at 860.

       On July 15, 2021, TBIC filed a re-urged motion for summary

judgment3 seeking dismissal of all claims filed against TBIC, asserting that

the Wrap-Up Exclusion contained in the CGL policy clearly and

unambiguously precludes coverage for Eagle’s work on the Project. TBIC

3 TBIC’s first motion for summary judgment was denied from the bench on July 23, 2020.



                                             4
argued therein that the Wrap-Up Exclusion does not require Eagle to be

actually enrolled in the CCIP policy in order for the exclusion to apply.

        In support of its motion for summary judgment, TBIC introduced: 1)

the affidavit of Woodward’s CEO, Paul Flower, certifying the CCIP policy,

and Woodward’s Subcontract with Eagle; 2) the affidavit of TBIC’s

Regional Claim Manager, Mitchell H. Jacobs, certifying the TBIC policy; 3)

the trial court’s December 30, 2020 judgment granting Woodward’s motion

for summary judgment, finding that Eagle was insured under the CCIP

policy; and 4) the May 11, 2021 per curiam opinion from the Louisiana

Supreme Court, reversing the trial court’s December 30, 2020 judgment.

        Eagle opposed TBIC’s motion for summary judgment4 asserting that

the TBIC Wrap-Up Exclusion does not apply to the facts of this case

because Woodward specifically excluded Eagle from the CCIP. Thus, Eagle

argued that because the CCIP was not actually available to Eagle, the TBIC

Wrap-Up Exclusion should not be interpreted to exclude coverage for Eagle.

Eagle further argued that the Wrap-Up Exclusion was vague and ambiguous.

        In support of its opposition to TBIC’s motion for summary judgment,

Eagle introduced the following:

Exhibit 1: The affidavit of Eagle’s managing member, Eugene R. Sak,

stating:

                • Eagle and Woodward executed a Subcontract for the
                  erection/dismantling of construction hoists at the Project. The
                  Subcontract provided, at Section 13.1.6 - Insurance, that
                  Woodward arranged for the Project to be insured under the CCIP.
                • On March 27, 2017, Karla Harper, with Woodward’s Wrap-Up
                  Administrator, e-mailed Eagle, “[i]t is my understanding that you

4 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.



                                           5
                have been onsite working. Please complete and return the attached
                enrollment documents and return immediately so that your work
                may be covered by insurance.”

            • The same day, Mr. Sak e-mailed Ms. Harper advising that he did
              not agree to participate in paying any additional premiums to be
              included in the CCIP.

            • On March 28, 2017, Ms. Harper e-mailed Mr. Sak informing him
              that enrollment in the CCIP was mandatory, and that the insurance
              premium was already included in the price of the Subcontract.

            • Based on this representation, Eagle completed the CCIP
              enrollment form and submitted the form to Ms. Harper on April 5,
              2017. Eagle received no request for additional information or
              further contact from Woodward or the Wrap-Up administrator until
              after the July 28, 2017 incident.

Exhibits 2 through 5: The affidavit of Cheryl Soares (Corporate Claims
Specialist for Network Adjusters, Inc., a third-party administrator for HCC),
verifying: 1) Woodward’s April 4, 2017 and April 24, 2017 e-mails to Ms.
Harper, informing her that Woodward decided to exclude Eagle from the
CCIP due to scope of work; and 2) Ms. Harper’s April 24, 2017 e-mail to
Eagle attaching the Exclusion Letter.

Exhibit 6: Excerpts from HCC’s corporate deposition, through Paul
Silverman, stating that Eagle’s exclusion from the CCIP was based on a
decision made by Woodward, not by HCC.

Exhibit 7: A printout from Insurance Coverage of Construction Disputes
§41K:1 (2d ed), Wrap-Up Exclusion in general.

      The matter was brought before the trial court on August 26, 2021, and

judgment was rendered September 20, 2021, granting TBIC’s re-urged

motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against TBIC, with

prejudice. The judgment also specifically provided that the TBIC policy

issued to Eagle “is clear and unambiguous and does not provide coverage for

the claims in this litigation.” Eagle’s Motion for New Trial was denied on

March 3, 2022. Plaintiffs’ appeal followed.




                                         6
LAW AND ANALYSIS

Summary Judgment Principles and Standard of Review

      “A summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate

court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether

summary judgment is appropriate; i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of

material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Planchard v. New Hotel Monteleone, LLC, 2021-00347, pp. 2-3 (La. 12/10/21),
332 So.3d 623
, 625 (citations omitted).

      The summary judgment procedure is favored; and the procedure “is

designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every

action.” La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). “After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a

motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and

supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and

that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La. C.C.P. art.

966(A)(3).

      A shifting burden of proof is set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1), which

provides:

             The burden of proof rests with the mover. Nevertheless, if the
      mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is
      before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's
      burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential
      elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to
      point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more
      elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. The
      burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to
      establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the
      mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

      A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree, “[i]f

on the state of the evidence, reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion,


                                          7
there is no need for trial on that issue[,]” and summary judgment is appropriate.

Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512, p. 27 (La. 7/5/94),
639 So.2d 730
, 751. “A fact is material when its existence or nonexistence may be essential

to the plaintiffs [sic] cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery; a fact

is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant’s

ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute.” Chapital v.

Harry Kelleher & Co., Inc., 2013-1606, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/4/14),
144 So.3d 75, 81
 (citation omitted).

        “Whether an insurance policy provides for, or precludes, coverage as a

matter of law is an issue that can be resolved within the framework of a motion for

summary judgment.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v Duxworth

Roofing and Sheetmetal, Inc. 2022-0821, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/18/23),
370 So.3d 1144
, 1149 (quoting Wagner v. Tammany Holding Co., LLC., 2013-0374, p. 7 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 10/9/13),
135 So.3d 77, 82
).

Assignment of Error

        In their sole assignment of error, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in

granting TBIC’s motion for summary judgment because Eagle was not insured

under the CCIP policy within the meaning of the Wrap-Up Exclusion contained in

the TBIC policy.5 Plaintiffs maintain that the trial court erred for three reasons,

which we will address separately below.

        Plaintiffs first argue that Eagle was not insured (and never would have been

insured) under the CCIP policy because equipment manufacturers, fabricators and

suppliers such as Eagle were expressly excluded from the program. We find no

merit in this argument.

5 Eagle has not filed a brief in this appeal.



                                                8
       As TBIC correctly points out, there is no evidence in the record that Eagle is

the manufacturer of the hoist. Additionally, TBIC asserts that the CCIP policy

excludes from insured status “suppliers of materials” but not suppliers/lessors of

equipment, such as Eagle. TBIC supports this argument, citing the “Additional

Insured” endorsement contained in the CCIP policy that extends coverage to “any

person or organization from whom you [Woodward] lease equipment.” TBIC has

maintained that the CCIP policy was intended to cover Eagle under two distinct

provisions: 1) as a lessor of equipment under the above mentioned “Additional

Insured” endorsement; 6 and 2) as an enrolled contractor, (for Eagle’s work

pursuant to the Subcontract to erect, dismantle, and provide preventative

maintenance for the hoist) under the Wrap-Up endorsement. The latter

endorsement provides that Woodward’s “enrolled contractors” are insured “only

while performing duties related to the project.”

       Second, plaintiffs submit that Eagle was not an insured (and never would

have been insured) under the CCIP policy because Woodward expressly excluded

Eagle from the program, even if they were otherwise eligible. Plaintiffs continue

to assert that the sole reason Eagle never became an insured under the CCIP policy

was because Woodward refused to allow Eagle to enroll. However, as noted

above, the Supreme Court has stated that Eagle was not insured under the CCIP

policy because Eagle did not follow the enrollment procedure. Soule, 2021-00322,

p. 4, 315 So.3d at 860.

       Finally, plaintiffs argue that TBIC’s interpretation of the Wrap-Up

Exclusion is contrary to the intent of the parties, the plain wording of the


6 TBIC avers that no court has yet determined whether Eagle was covered by the Additional

Insured endorsement that extends coverage to lessors of leased equipment.


                                               9
exclusion, and public policy. Plaintiffs submit that Eagle reasonably believed and

intended that the TBIC policy would provide coverage for its work on the Project.

Moreover, plaintiffs assert that Eagle paid premiums to both TBIC and

Woodward/HCC, yet Eagle could be left uninsured if the Wrap-Up Exclusion is

found to be applicable. Thus, plaintiffs assert that equity supports the reasonable

interpretation that the Wrap-Up Exclusion only applies if and when the insured is

actually enrolled in the Project’s wrap-up program, not simply when the insured is

eligible to enroll. As explained below, we do not find plaintiffs’ position to be a

proper interpretation of the TBIC policy.

Interpretation of Insurance Contracts7

       In Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 2005-0886 (La. 5/17/06),
930 So.2d 906
,

the Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the principles for construing insurance

policies as follows:

              An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should
       be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set
       forth in the Civil Code. Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 02-1637, p. 3
       (La. 6/27/03),
848 So.2d 577, 580
; Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n v.
       Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 93-0911, p. 5 (La. 1/14/94),
630 So.2d 759, 763
. The judicial responsibility in interpreting insurance
       contracts is to determine the parties’ common intent. La. C.C. art.
       2045; Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 93-0911 at p. 5,
630 So.2d at 763
;
       Garcia v. St. Bernard Parish School Board,
576 So.2d 975, 976
 (La.
       1991). Words and phrases used in an insurance policy are to be
       construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing
       meaning, unless the words have acquired a technical meaning. La.
       C.C. art. 2047; Cadwallader, 02-1637 at p. 3,
848 So.2d at 580
;
       Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97-3085, p. 4 (La. 10/20/98),
719 So.2d 437, 439
.


7 The TBIC policy was issued to Eagle in Alabama. The parties concede that the relevant

contract interpretation is the same in both Alabama and Louisiana. Thus, a choice of laws
analysis is unnecessary. See Lee v. Sapp, 2014-1047, p. 4(La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/15),
163 So.3d 60, 63
 (observing that a “false conflict” exists when “the governing law of each jurisdiction is
identical, or so similar that the same result would be reached under either law.” When a false
conflict exists, “no need exists to determine which state’s law applies.” Id.). Accordingly, we
apply Louisiana law.


                                               10
             An insurance policy should not be interpreted in an
      unreasonable or a strained manner so as to enlarge or to restrict its
      provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so
      as to achieve an absurd conclusion. Carrier v. Reliance Ins. Co., 99-
      2573, pp. 11-12 (La. 4/11/00),
759 So.2d 37, 43
 (quoting Louisiana
      Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 93-0911 at p. 5,
630 So.2d at 763
). Unless a policy
      conflicts with statutory provisions or public policy, it may limit an
      insurer’s liability and impose and enforce reasonable conditions upon
      the policy obligations the insurer contractually assumes. Carbon, 97-
      3085 at p. 5,
719 So.2d at 440
; Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 93-0911 at
      p. 6,
630 So.2d at 763
.

             If after applying the other general rules of construction an
      ambiguity remains, the ambiguous contractual provision is to be
      construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage. Cadwallader,
      02-1637 at p. 3,
848 So.2d at 580
; Carrier, 99-2573 at p. 12,
759 So.2d at 43-44
. Under this rule of strict construction, equivocal
      provisions seeking to narrow an insurer’s obligation are strictly
      construed against the insurer. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 93-0911 at
      p. 6,
630 So.2d at 764
; Garcia,
576 So.2d at 976
. That strict
      construction principle, however, is subject to exceptions.
      Cadwallader, 02-1637 at p. 3,
848 So.2d at 580
; Carrier, 99-2573 at
      p. 12,
759 So.2d at 43-44
. One of these exceptions is that the strict
      construction rule applies only if the ambiguous policy provision is
      susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations. Cadwallader,
      02-637 at p. 3,
848 So.2d at 580
; Carrier, 99-2573 at p. 12,
759 So.2d at 43-44
. For the rule of strict construction to apply, the insurance
      policy must be not only susceptible to two or more interpretations, but
      each of the alternative interpretations must be reasonable.
      Cadwallader, 02-1637 at p. 3,
848 So.2d at 580
; Carrier, 99-2573 at
      p. 12,
759 So.2d at 43-44
.

Bonin, 2005-0886 at pp. 4-6,
930 So.2d at 910-11
; See also Vise v Olivier House

Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 2016-0741, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/12/17),
216 So.3d 157, 161-62
.

      Regarding an exclusion contained in an insurance policy, this Court

has recently reiterated the following:

      [A]lthough an insurer can limit its liability if, in so doing, this does
      not result in a conflict with statutory provisions or public policy, the
      insurer bears the burden of proof if it claims that a loss falls within a
      policy exclusion. Choice Found. v. Law Indus., LLC, 2021-0431, p. 4
      (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/2/22),
336 So.3d 501
, 505 (quoting Perniciaro v.
      McInnis, 2018-0113, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/7/18),
255 So.3d 1223, 1231
). “[A] provision which seeks to narrow the insurer’s obligation

                                         11
      is strictly construed against the insurer ....” Reynolds v. Select Props.,
      1993-1480 (La. 04/11/94),
634 So.2d 1180, 1183
 (citing Garcia v. St.
      Bernard Sch. Bd.,
576 So.2d 975, 976
 (La. 1991); Breland v.
      Schilling,
550 So.2d 609, 610
 (La. 1989)).

Lewis v State Nat’l Ins. Co., Inc. 2022-0693, p. 24 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/19/23),
368 So.3d 653
, 668.

      With these precepts in mind, we turn to the interpretation of the TBIC

policy.

      Woodward’s Subcontract with Eagle specifically provides that Woodward

arranged for the Project to be insured under the CCIP policy to provide coverage

for Eagle’s work at the Project site. The CCIP policy was issued by HCC.

Notwithstanding the reason why Eagle was ultimately not enrolled, the record

demonstrates that Eagle was clearly performing work on the Project that was to be

insured under the CCIP policy. Moreover, the plain language of the Wrap-Up

Exclusion states that coverage for Eagle is excluded in “[a]ll locations where you

perform or have performed work that is or was to be insured under a consolidated

(wrap-up) insurance program . . . ” It does not state, as plaintiffs contend, that the

exclusion only applies if Eagle was actually enrolled in the CCIP policy.

      Plaintiffs also assert that if it was TBIC’s intent to preclude coverage simply

when a contractor was eligible to enroll in a CCIP policy, the Wrap-Up Exclusion

could have so stated. However, as our jurisprudence has recognized, “although an

exclusion could have been worded more explicitly, it ‘does not necessarily deem it

ambiguous’ ”. Forrest as Tr. for Jack Thrash Forrest III Tr. v. Ville St. John

Owner Ass’n, Inc. 2018-0175, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/7/18),
259 So.3d 1063, 1069

(quoting Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Gov’t, 2010-1543, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir.

3/30/11),
64 So.3d 312, 319
).


                                          12
      Pursuant to our de novo review of the record, and applying the well-

established principles of contract interpretation, we find, as did the trial court, that

the TBIC policy Wrap-Up Exclusion clearly and unambiguously precludes

coverage for Eagle’s work on the Project. Accordingly, the Wrap-Up Exclusion

must be enforced as written.

                                  DECREE

      For the foregoing reasons, we find no error on the part of the trial court in

granting summary judgment in favor of TBIC. Accordingly, we affirm.




                                                             AFFIRMED




                                           13