849 F. Supp. 2d 720
E.D. La.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Lemly Amberge and Amberge sued Lamb and Arnica for special damages, punitive damages, and general damages from four collisions involving Lamb’s vehicle.
- Lamb rear-ended plaintiffs four times and backed into them on the shoulder, all within seven minutes.
- Arnica provided uninsured motorists coverage with $500,000 per accident; plaintiffs seek multiple limits if four accidents exist.
- Policy language states limit “for any one accident” and prohibits duplicate payments; no explicit “accident” definition in policy.
- Court applies Louisiana substantive law and determines whether there were one or four insurable accidents.
- Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment; Arnica opposes, arguing a single accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of insurable accidents under policy | Four distinct collisions justify four accidents | One uninterrupted event; single accident | Four insurable accidents existed |
| The controlling theory to determine accidents | Causation or effect theory support multiple accidents | Typically causal continuity yields one accident | Court applies both theories and finds multiple accidents under Rawls facts |
| Policy language governing per-accident limit | Per-accident limit should apply to each collision | Limit applies per accident; if four accidents, four limits | Policy limit applies per accident; four accidents grant up to $2,000,000 total |
| Choice of law and interpretation standard | Louisiana law should guide policy interpretation | Same; Louisiana law controls | Louisiana substantive law governs; ambiguities resolved for coverage |
| Procedural posture—summary judgment proper | No genuine issue of material fact on number of accidents | Dispute over factual causation and control facts | Summary judgment granted on the question of four accidents |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1968) (causation and effect theories to determine number of accidents)
- Redden v. Doe, 357 So.2d 632 (La. App. 1978) (injuries covered under policy; sequence of events relevant to accident)
- Szczepkowicz, 185 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (Ill. App. 1989) (multiple collisions separated by time; control and sequence matter)
- Olsen v. Moore, 202 N.W.2d 236 (Wis. 1972) (single accident when driver loses control; control matters)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (diversity: apply state substantive law; relevant to accident analysis)