STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT JAMES J. DONELON, NO. 2025 CW 0710 COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA PAGE 1 OF 2 VERSUS AMERICAS INSURANCE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED WITH CADENCE BANK VERSUS BILLY BOSTICK, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER FOR ASSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION, ASSURE UNDERWRITING AGENCY, AND AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OCTOBER 07, 2025 In Re: Cadence Bank, applying for supervi Judicial District Court, Parish of § 714982 c/w 717212.

Lsery writs, 19th st Baton Rouge, No. BEFORE : McCLENDON, C.J., WOLFE, HESTER, GREENE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. The portions of the district court’s May 28, 2025 judgment which granted the motion to strike filed by Tim Temple, Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Louisiana, in his capacity as Liquidator of Americas Insurance Company, Inc., Assure Holding Corporation, and Assure Underwriting Agency, LLC, and his duly appointed Receiver, Billy Bostick and ordered that certain persons and/or entities not be listed on the jury verdict form and rendered judgment on contribution rights is vacated. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 964 provides that a court on motion of a party or on its own motion may at any time and after a hearing order stricken from any pleading any insufficient demand or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Louisiana jurisprudence has consistently held that the purpose of a motion to strike is to be a means of clearing up the pleadings, not a means of eliminating causes of action or substantive allegations. Thurman v. Aguilar, 2021-1513 (La. App. ist Cir. 6/22/22), 343 So.3d 806, 813, writ denied, 2022-01109 (La. 11/1/22) 349 So.3d 8. The trial court abused its discretion by granting relief that went beyond the purpose of a motion to strike. In all other respects, the writ is denied.

CHH HG TPS STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2025 CW 0710 PAGE 2 OF 2 McClendon, C.J., and Wolfe, J., dissent and would deny the writ. The criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Co., Ine. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 3°26 So.2da 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), are not met.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT