Having considered the record, oral argument and briefs of the parties, we find the court of appeal correctly reversed the district court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of First American Title Co. However, we find the court of appeal erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. See Penalber v. Blount , 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989) (explaining that summary judgment "is rarely appropriate for a determination based on subjective facts such as intent, motive, malice, knowledge or good faith."). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The motions for summary judgment filed by both parties are hereby denied, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

GENOVESE, J., dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that the court of appeal erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Linda Degueyter. However, I disagree with the majority that the court of appeal correctly reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Company (First American).

Resolution of First American's motion for summary judgment requires an interpretation and application of its owner's title insurance policy. First American's motion for summary judgment does not , as the majority concludes, require a determination of "subjective facts such as intent, motive, malice, knowledge or good faith." Penalber v. Blount , 550 So.2d 577 , 583 (La. 1989). Rather, summary judgment in favor of First American is appropriate because there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the lack of coverage in favor of Degueyter under the title insurance policy, and the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. For these reasons, I find the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of First American.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent in part.