Background
In June 2023, Ronnie Knox rented a 2019 GMC Terrain from Avis Rent A Car Systems, LLC. During the rental period, Knox’s relative, Marquis Bernard Knox, allegedly took the vehicle without permission and was involved in an accident that damaged it. Knox maintained he had purchased insurance coverage through Avis at the time of the rental. Avis filed suit in Baton Rouge City Court seeking $16,717.28 in damages, plus 18% annual contractual interest, attorney’s fees, and costs, alleging Knox breached the rental agreement by failing to return the vehicle in its original condition.
Avis moved for summary judgment, arguing that Knox had declined the loss damage waiver (LDW) offered at the time of rental and therefore was contractually responsible for all loss or damage to the vehicle regardless of cause or who caused it. The rental terms and conditions expressly provided that if the LDW was not accepted, the renter would owe for all loss or damage to the car. Knox opposed the motion by affidavit and memorandum, and the trial court granted summary judgment in Avis’s favor by judgment dated October 14, 2025.
Knox appealed, assigning as error the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The First Circuit conducted a de novo review of the record, applying the same criteria as the trial court.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit reversed the summary judgment, finding that Avis’s own supporting documents contradicted its factual premise. The rental agreement receipt submitted by Avis in support of its motion showed that Knox had in fact opted for and paid for both the loss damage waiver and additional liability insurance — directly undercutting Avis’s core contention that Knox declined the LDW and therefore bore full responsibility for the vehicle’s damage. Because Avis assumed all loss or damage upon Knox’s acceptance of the LDW, the contractual basis for Avis’s claim was called squarely into question by Avis’s own evidence.
The court further noted that at the hearing, Avis attempted to pivot to a new theory — that an exception to LDW coverage applied because an unauthorized driver was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court rejected that argument, reiterating the principle that counsel’s argument is not evidence. The court also cited La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(F), which limits summary judgment to issues set forth in the motion itself, finding that Avis’s last-minute shift in theory ran afoul of both the evidentiary rules and the notice requirements underlying summary judgment practice.
Because Avis failed to make a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact remained — indeed, its own documents raised material factual disputes — the burden never shifted to Knox. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, taxing all costs of appeal to Avis.
Key Takeaways
- A summary judgment movant who will bear the trial burden must support the motion with credible evidence sufficient for a directed verdict; submitting documents that contradict the movant’s own factual narrative defeats that burden entirely.
- Under La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(F), a party may not shift to a new legal theory at the summary judgment hearing — the motion is limited to the issues identified in the motion and supporting memorandum, protecting the opponent from unfair surprise.
- Attorney argument at a hearing is not evidence and cannot fill evidentiary gaps in a summary judgment record.
- Where a renter purchased a loss damage waiver, the rental company — not the renter — bears the risk of loss or damage, and the company cannot recover on a breach-of-contract theory premised on the renter having declined that coverage.
Why It Matters
This decision is a cautionary tale for creditors and contract plaintiffs moving for summary judgment: the motion’s supporting documents must affirmatively establish every element of the claim, and internal inconsistencies in the movant’s own evidence will doom the motion. Here, Avis not only failed to prove its case — it disproved its own premise by attaching a receipt showing Knox purchased the very coverage Avis claimed he rejected.
The ruling also reinforces Louisiana’s strict procedural boundaries on summary judgment practice. Courts will not permit a movant to cure a deficient motion through new arguments raised only at the hearing, a rule designed to prevent the exact kind of strategic pivoting Avis attempted. Practitioners handling vehicle damage or rental agreement disputes should ensure that the documentary record unambiguously supports the theory pleaded before filing for summary judgment.