Marks v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company and Hardy & Murray, Inc., 531 So. 2d 516 (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1988) 

FACTS 

The plaintiff, Gertrude Marks, is the insured under a homeowner's policy issued by the defendant, Trinity Universal Insurance Company. The plaintiff submitted a claim to recover under the homeowner's policy the costs of repair she incurred after a raccoon damaged the plaintiff's home in Shreveport. Plaintiff's costs of repair for the damage was $623.76. 

The defendant refused to pay plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff filed suit demanding the costs of repair totaling $623.76, penalties and attorney's fees under LSA-R.S. 22:658 for defendant's failure to pay the claim within sixty days of demand. 

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a policy provision which excludes coverage for damage caused by "birds, vermin, rodents, insects, or domestic animals." The defendant argued that a raccoon is a "vermin" under the exclusion. 

The trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The trial court concluded the term "vermin" is ambiguous. The trial court made this determination based upon a factually similar Texas case wherein the damage was caused by a squirrel. Jones v. American Economy Insurance Co., 672 S.W.2d 879 (Texas Court of Appeals, 1984).

The Texas court concluded the term vermin is susceptible of more than one interpretation and is therefore ambiguous. Having made this determination the Texas court then construed the exclusion in favor of the insured and held "vermin" does not include a squirrel as an exclusion under the terms of the policy. The trial court in the instant case expressly adopted the rationale of the Texas court and concluded a raccoon is not a vermin under the policy exclusion. 
  
The Texas case relied upon by the trial court is Jones v. American Economy Ins. Co., 672 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. App. 5 Dist. 1984) wherein the court stated: 
  
We conclude the term [vermin] does not have a simple, plain, and generally accepted meaning and that it is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation; therefore, we hold that the term is ambiguous. Because insurance policies are interpreted and construed liberally in favor of the insured and against the insurer, particularly when dealing with exceptions and words of limitation, we hold that the term "vermin" does not include a squirrel and, thus, that the damage done to the Joneses' home by a squirrel is not an excluded loss under the terms of the policy.