A Louisiana appellate court affirmed a trial court’s judgment in favor of an insurer on the basis of an auto exclusion in a CGL policy, finding the alleged bodily injury arose out of the “use” of a delivery truck even though it was stopped for an inspection. Morrow v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015-0578, 2016 WL 3561709 (La. App. 4 Cir. June 29, 2016).

A security guard was injured when the driver of a delivery truck owned by a food sales and service business closed the truck door as the guard inspected the cargo compartment of the truck. The guard sued for damages, and, in a direct action proceeding, added the insurer of the food sales and service business. The insurer moved for summary judgment on the basis of an auto exclusion in its CGL policy. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion and dismissed the guard’s claims against the insurer.

On appeal, the court considered the issue of whether “the auto exclusion applies to bodily injuries allegedly caused while a delivery truck is briefly stopped for the purpose of allowing an inspection of its contents.” The guard argued that the truck was not in “use” because the truck was not in motion or in the process of being operated, loaded or unloaded. The court held that the truck was being used solely for transportation and locomotion at the time of injury and noted that the engine was running and the driver stopped briefly only so the guard could inspect the truck’s contents. The court reasoned that the guard’s injuries did not arise out of the insured’s food sales and service business but out of the ordinary use of an auto as set forth in the policy’s exclusion. The court affirmed the trial court judgment.