Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you rent a car and accidentally damage it while you're driving. Your rental agreement might say the rental company's insurance doesn't cover damage that happens while the car is in your 'care, custody, or control.' This case says that if you're responsible for something and it gets damaged while you're looking after it, your insurance might not cover it, similar to how the pipeline lessees weren't covered for damaging the pipeline they were operating.

For Legal Practitioners

The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the application of the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion in an "all-risk" property policy, holding that the lessees' possession and operational control over the pipeline triggered the exclusion for damage occurring during their operations. This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of the exclusion, emphasizing that the insured's responsibility for the property at the time of loss is paramount, regardless of ownership. Practitioners should advise clients that this exclusion will likely be enforced when the insured has direct physical control and responsibility for the property damaged.

For Law Students

This case tests the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion in an insurance policy. The court found that the lessees' possession and operational control over the pipeline meant the exclusion applied, denying coverage for damage caused by their own operations. This illustrates the principle that an insured's dominion and responsibility over property at the time of loss can preclude coverage under certain policy exclusions, a key concept in insurance law regarding the scope of coverage.

Newsroom Summary

Louisiana's Supreme Court ruled that an insurance policy's exclusion for damage occurring while property is in the 'care, custody, or control' of the insured can deny coverage. This decision impacts businesses operating leased equipment, potentially leaving them responsible for damages that might otherwise have been insured.

Constitutional Issues

Interpretation of insurance policy provisionsDuty to defend and indemnify

Rule Statements

"The 'care, custody, or control' exclusion in an insurance policy is intended to relieve the insurer from liability for damage to property that is within the insured's exclusive dominion and control."

"The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and is determined by the allegations in the injured party's petition, construing all allegations in favor of the insured."

Remedies

Reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Old Republic.Remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion, including a determination of Old Republic's duty to defend and indemnify.

Scenario: You are a contractor hired to perform maintenance on a client's specialized equipment. During the work, you accidentally damage the equipment. You believe your business insurance should cover the repair costs.

Your Rights: Your right to insurance coverage may depend on the specific wording of your policy and the client's contract. If your policy has a 'care, custody, or control' exclusion, and the damage occurred while you had direct physical possession and responsibility for the equipment, your insurer might deny coverage.

What To Do: Review your insurance policy carefully for any 'care, custody, or control' exclusions. Examine your contract with the client to understand your responsibilities. If coverage is denied, consult with your insurance provider and potentially an attorney to understand your options.

Is it legal for my insurance company to deny coverage for damage to property I'm renting or operating if I accidentally damage it?

It depends. If your insurance policy contains a 'care, custody, or control' exclusion, and you had possession and operational control of the property when the damage occurred, the insurance company may legally deny coverage based on this ruling. However, the specific wording of your policy and the circumstances of the damage are crucial.

This ruling is from Louisiana and applies within that state. Similar exclusions exist in many jurisdictions, but their interpretation can vary.

For Businesses operating leased or third-party equipment

This ruling means businesses that lease or operate equipment owned by others may face significant financial exposure if they damage that equipment. They should anticipate that standard 'care, custody, or control' exclusions will likely be enforced, requiring them to secure alternative coverage or self-insure for such risks.

For Insurance policyholders

Policyholders should be aware that 'care, custody, or control' exclusions are interpreted broadly by courts in Louisiana. This could lead to unexpected denials of coverage for damages occurring while the insured is in possession of or exercising control over property, even if the damage wasn't intentional.

Q: What is Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp about?

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp is a case decided by Louisiana Supreme Court on June 27, 2025.

Q: What court decided Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp was decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which is part of the LA state court system. This is a state supreme court.

Q: When was Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp decided?

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp was decided on June 27, 2025.

Q: Who were the judges in Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

The judges in Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp: McCallum, J..

Q: What is the citation for Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

The citation for Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the main parties involved in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The full case name is Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp. The plaintiffs are Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller, while the defendants include Old Republic Insurance Company and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp.

Q: What court decided the case of McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The case of McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company was decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Q: When was the decision in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company issued?

The decision in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company was issued on March 23, 2021.

Q: What was the primary nature of the dispute in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The primary dispute in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company concerned the interpretation of an insurance policy's "care, custody, or control" exclusion and whether it applied to damages sustained by a pipeline that the plaintiffs were leasing.

Q: What was the relationship between the plaintiffs and the pipeline in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The plaintiffs, McBride, Dowdy, and Miller, were lessees of the pipeline and were operating it at the time the damages occurred. They sought coverage under an insurance policy for these damages.

Q: What specific type of damage occurred to the pipeline in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The summary indicates that the plaintiffs sought coverage for damages to the pipeline caused by their own operations. While the exact nature of the damage isn't specified, it resulted from the lessees' activities while operating the pipeline.

Q: Is Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp published?

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp. Key holdings: The "care, custody, or control" exclusion in an insurance policy applies when the insured has possession and control over the damaged property, even if the insured did not own it.; The lessees of the pipeline were found to have had "care, custody, or control" of the pipeline because they were in possession and responsible for its operation and maintenance during the lease term.; Damage to the pipeline caused by the lessees' own operations fell within the scope of the "care, custody, or control" exclusion, relieving the insurer of liability.; The court rejected the lessees' argument that the exclusion only applied to property owned by a third party, finding that the language of the exclusion was broad enough to encompass property under the insured's control.; The interpretation of the insurance policy's terms was based on the plain language of the contract and established legal precedent regarding similar exclusions..

Q: Why is Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp important?

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the broad interpretation of the "care, custody, or control" exclusion in insurance policies, particularly in contexts involving leased property. Businesses that lease or operate third-party property should carefully review their insurance coverage and policy exclusions to ensure adequate protection against potential liabilities.

Q: What precedent does Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp set?

Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp established the following key holdings: (1) The "care, custody, or control" exclusion in an insurance policy applies when the insured has possession and control over the damaged property, even if the insured did not own it. (2) The lessees of the pipeline were found to have had "care, custody, or control" of the pipeline because they were in possession and responsible for its operation and maintenance during the lease term. (3) Damage to the pipeline caused by the lessees' own operations fell within the scope of the "care, custody, or control" exclusion, relieving the insurer of liability. (4) The court rejected the lessees' argument that the exclusion only applied to property owned by a third party, finding that the language of the exclusion was broad enough to encompass property under the insured's control. (5) The interpretation of the insurance policy's terms was based on the plain language of the contract and established legal precedent regarding similar exclusions.

Q: What are the key holdings in Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

1. The "care, custody, or control" exclusion in an insurance policy applies when the insured has possession and control over the damaged property, even if the insured did not own it. 2. The lessees of the pipeline were found to have had "care, custody, or control" of the pipeline because they were in possession and responsible for its operation and maintenance during the lease term. 3. Damage to the pipeline caused by the lessees' own operations fell within the scope of the "care, custody, or control" exclusion, relieving the insurer of liability. 4. The court rejected the lessees' argument that the exclusion only applied to property owned by a third party, finding that the language of the exclusion was broad enough to encompass property under the insured's control. 5. The interpretation of the insurance policy's terms was based on the plain language of the contract and established legal precedent regarding similar exclusions.

Q: What cases are related to Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

Precedent cases cited or related to Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp: Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Fraiman, 400 S.W.2d 332 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Ponsford Bros., 423 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1968).

Q: What specific insurance policy provision was central to the dispute in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The central provision was the "care, custody, or control" exclusion within the insurance policy issued by Old Republic Insurance Company. This exclusion typically denies coverage for damage to property that is in the insured's possession or control.

Q: What was the holding of the Louisiana Supreme Court in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company regarding the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion?

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the "care, custody, or control" exclusion in the insurance policy did apply to the damages sustained by the pipeline. Therefore, Old Republic Insurance Company was not obligated to cover the loss.

Q: What was the court's reasoning for applying the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

The court reasoned that the plaintiffs, as lessees, had both possession and control over the pipeline. The damage occurred while the pipeline was within their care and operation, thus triggering the exclusion.

Q: Did the court consider the plaintiffs' operations to be within the scope of the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion?

Yes, the court found that the plaintiffs' operations, which led to the pipeline's damage, were precisely the type of situation the "care, custody, or control" exclusion was designed to prevent coverage for.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply when interpreting the insurance policy exclusion?

The court applied the standard of interpreting insurance policies according to the general rules of contract interpretation, aiming to ascertain the parties' intent. Ambiguities are construed against the insurer, but clear and unambiguous terms are enforced as written.

Q: How did the court define 'care, custody, or control' in the context of this pipeline dispute?

The court viewed 'care, custody, or control' as encompassing the physical possession and operational management of the property. The lessees' active use and management of the pipeline satisfied this definition.

Q: Was there any argument that the pipeline was not exclusively within the plaintiffs' control?

While not explicitly detailed in the summary, the court's finding implies that the plaintiffs' control as lessees was sufficient to trigger the exclusion, regardless of any potential shared ownership or access by others.

Q: How does Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp affect me?

This decision reinforces the broad interpretation of the "care, custody, or control" exclusion in insurance policies, particularly in contexts involving leased property. Businesses that lease or operate third-party property should carefully review their insurance coverage and policy exclusions to ensure adequate protection against potential liabilities. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company decision for lessees of industrial equipment?

The decision reinforces that lessees operating equipment are likely to be considered in 'care, custody, or control' of that equipment, meaning damages arising from their operations may not be covered by their insurance if such an exclusion exists.

Q: Who is most affected by the ruling in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company?

Businesses and individuals who lease or operate industrial equipment, pipelines, or similar assets are most affected. They need to carefully review their insurance policies and consider the implications of 'care, custody, or control' exclusions.

Q: What should businesses do to comply with the implications of this ruling?

Businesses should review their insurance policies, particularly any 'care, custody, or control' exclusions, and assess whether their operational activities could fall within such exclusions. They may need to seek additional coverage or implement stricter risk management protocols.

Q: Does this ruling mean that all damage to leased property is uninsurable?

No, the ruling specifically applies to the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion. Damage caused by third parties or events not related to the lessee's direct operations might still be covered, depending on the policy's other terms.

Q: What are the potential financial implications for businesses after this decision?

Businesses may face significant financial exposure for damages to leased property if their insurance policies contain similar exclusions and they are found to be in 'care, custody, or control' of the damaged asset.

Q: What is the significance of the court's decision for future insurance disputes involving leased property?

The decision serves as a reminder for policyholders to carefully review their insurance contracts and understand the limitations imposed by exclusions like 'care, custody, or control,' especially when operating leased or third-party property.

Q: How does the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion fit into the broader history of insurance law?

The 'care, custody, or control' exclusion is a long-standing provision in liability insurance designed to limit an insurer's exposure for damage to property that is essentially the insured's responsibility to protect due to its direct management.

Q: Are there landmark cases that established the principle behind the 'care, custody, or control' exclusion?

The principle behind this exclusion has been developed through numerous cases over decades, with courts consistently interpreting it to deny coverage when the insured has direct physical control and responsibility for the damaged property.

Q: How does McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company compare to other 'care, custody, or control' cases?

This case likely follows the general trend of enforcing such exclusions when the insured's operational control over the damaged property is clear, distinguishing itself based on the specific facts of pipeline operation and lease agreements.

Q: What was the docket number in Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp?

The docket number for Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp is 2024-C-01519. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Marilyn H. McBride, Davy A. Dowdy, and Joey E. Miller v. Old Republic Insurance Company, John K. Woodard, David G. Brooks, Sr., and Enable Midstream Partners, Lp be appealed?

Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

Q: How did the case of McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company reach the Louisiana Supreme Court?

The case likely reached the Louisiana Supreme Court through an appeal from a lower court's decision. Typically, such appeals occur after a trial court or intermediate appellate court has ruled on the interpretation of the insurance policy.

Q: What procedural issue was likely central to the lower courts' decisions before the Supreme Court?

The central procedural issue was likely the interpretation of the insurance contract's "care, custody, or control" exclusion, which could have been decided on motions for summary judgment or after a bench trial.

Q: Did the court in McBride v. Old Republic Insurance Company make any rulings on evidence or procedure beyond contract interpretation?

The provided summary focuses on the substantive legal interpretation of the insurance exclusion. Any specific rulings on evidence or procedural matters would likely be detailed within the full opinion but are not highlighted in the summary.