Cole C. Frazier

Partner

About

Cole C. Frazier is a litigator with experience representing clients in Louisiana’s state and federals courts. His practice is primarily focused in the areas of personal injury, premises liability, construction defects, product liability, wrongful death/survival, first-party property and hurricane/storm disputes, and complex litigation. He handles all aspects of the litigation process including motion and appellate practice, oral argument, discovery, taking and defending depositions, alternative dispute resolution, and trial preparation.

Cole joined Keogh Cox in 2019 after working at the firm as a law clerk. He earned both his Juris Doctor and Degree in Comparative Law from Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center. During law school, Cole was an active participant in the Civil Mediation Clinic and the Robert Lee Tullis Moot Court Competition gaining valuable advocacy and dispute-resolution experience. He also studied comparative law internationally at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University in Lyon, France. Cole received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Nicholls State University where he was a member of the football team. As a student-athlete, he served as a team captain, earned a four-year letterman, and selected to the Southland Conference All-Academic Team in 2013 and 2014.

  • Membership Chair, The Dean Henry George McMahon Inn of Court
  • Member, Louisiana State Bar Association
  • Member, Baton Rouge Bar Association
  • Member, Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel
    ‍

  • 2025-2027 Louisiana Super Lawyers "Rising Star" in Personal Injury General: Defense
  • Nominee, 2014 William V. Campbell Trophy awarded by the National Football Foundation & College Hall of Fame to the NCAA football player with the best combination of academics, community service, and on-field performance.
  • Recipient, Nicholls State University Football Band of Brothers Award for Teamwork and Leadership

Practice Areas

Education

  • J.D. / D.C.L., Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, 2019
  • B.S., Business Administration, Nicholls State University, 2015
    • Athletic Scholarship
    • President’s List
    • Dean’s List

Admissions

  • Louisiana, 2019
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2019
  • District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019
  • District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, 2019
  • District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, 2019

Accolades

Recent Articles by This Attorney

Explore this author's legal perspectives on issues shaping Louisiana.

News

Keogh Cox Congratulates Attorneys Selected to the 2027 Louisiana Super Lawyers and Rising Stars® Lists

Keogh Cox is proud to recognize our ten attorneys who havebeen selected to the 2027 Louisiana Super Lawyers and Rising Stars® lists.

Our seven attorneys named to the 2027 Louisiana SuperLawyers® list are:

  • John P. Wolff, III – Civil Litigation: Defense
  • Andrew Blanchfield - Professional Liability: Defense
  • Kirk L. Landry – Workers’ Compensation
  • Collin J. LeBlanc – General Litigation
  • Christopher K. Jones – Class Action
  • Mary Anne Wolf – Construction Litigation
  • Tori S. Bowling – General Litigation

Our three attorneys named to the 2027 Louisiana Rising Stars® list are:

  • Sydnee D. Menou –  Insurance Coverage
  • Cole C. Frazier –  Personal Injury General: Defense
  • Brandi A. Barze – Civil Litigation: Defense

Please help us congratulate these attorneys on their amazing accomplishments!

Insight

Louisiana Court Finds No Coverage Under Policy Based Upon Insured’s Failure to Cooperate

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v. Markel American Insurance Co., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment finding that the insured’s failure to cooperate violated the policy’s coverage terms and voided coverage.

The dispute arose from a commercial first-party property loss following Hurricane Ida. The insurer moved quickly to adjust the claim by retaining an independent adjuster and engineers to evaluate the damage to and value of the insured property. It also asked the insured to produce documentation needed to complete the adjustment, including records of installation costs, monthly revenues, and repair estimates. The insured did not respond.

Additionally, the insurer sent numerous emails over the course of the claim requesting information about (1) the costs the insured had incurred; (2) documentation supporting the income loss claim, along with quotes, estimates, and proposals for repairs; and (3) the scope of work for testing and repairs. However, most of these requests went unanswered.

Based on this evidence, the court determined that the insured violated the terms of the policy because it failed to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. Most notably, the insured obtained repair estimates and proposals from its own contractor and withheld them from the insurer until after suit was filed. The insured also never submitted a completed proof of loss, even though the policy required submission of such a document that included estimates and “other reasonable information” the insurer needed to settle the loss. These acts showed the insured failed to “cooperate with [the insurer] in performing all acts required by this policy.”

The insurer showed that it pursued the information diligently and that the insured’s breach was both material and prejudicial. The court found (1) the insurer had documented repeated, specific requests for nearly a year, (2) the withheld documents went directly to quantifying the loss, and (3) the insured’s noncompliance deprived the insurer of its right to investigate the insured’s claim.

As a result, the court granted summary judgment finding no genuine issue of material fact relating to the insured’s breach of the policy’s cooperation clause. The insured was precluded from bringing a breach of insurance contract claim and therefore, without a valid contractual claim, the insured also could not pursue a bad faith claim against the insurer.

References:

South Alexander Development I, LLC v. Markel American Insurance Co., CV 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, 2026 WL 1819120 (M.D. La. June 24, 2026).

Insight

Keogh Cox Secures Dismissal of Premises Liability Case

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment Keogh Cox obtained in Clark v. Premier Automotive Management, LLC, finding the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence failed to establish an unreasonable risk of harm caused her to fall.

In Clark, the plaintiff claimed she was injured after slipped and fell in a puddle of water in a service garage. Keogh Cox attorneys Chad A. Sullivan and Cole C. Frazier filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants in response. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof to establish that standing water or a hazardous condition caused her fall. Specifically, the defendants maintained that the plaintiff could not establish (1) an unreasonable risk of harm existed within the garage or (2) the puddle of water existed on the garage floor for an extended period of time.

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that it rained earlier in the day, that she was walking quickly before she fell, and that she was wearing flip flops. The plaintiff also testified she assumed she fell in a puddle of water because her back was damp after her fall. She described the amount of water under her shoes as the size of a “softball.”

The defendants also attached the affidavits of two employees who worked at the service garage on the day of the incident. The affidavits acknowledged wet conditions on the day of the incident but denied any prior complaints or accidents in the area. The affidavits also established that the plaintiff fell in an uncovered area of the garage that slopes downward. Thus, there was no possibility for standing water or puddles to collect.

Based upon this evidence, the appellate court found that the defendants satisfied their burden of proof to show there was no unreasonable risk of harm. The court stated the burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish that there was an unreasonable risk of harm and thus establishing a genuine issue of material fact. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden because all her arguments were based upon conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. To support her claims, the plaintiff could only cite to the “possibility” of the existence of standing water or puddles. As such, the plaintiff only speculated whether a hazardous substance or an unreasonable risk of harm caused her fall. Such speculation was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

In so holding, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that Keogh Cox obtained through summary judgment.

References:

Clark v. Premier Auto. Mgmt., LLC, 2024-0397 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 451473.

Read our Latest Blogs Providing Insight on Important Legal Matters

No items found.
No items found.