127 So. 3d 61
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Grandparents, acting as tutor and undertutor, sued their grandchildren's mother, a friend visiting at Fontenot's home, and insurers arising from a car-seat fire injuring two children.
- QBE Specialty Insurance Company issued the grandchildren’s uninsured/underinsured motorist policy; plaintiffs sought coverage under that policy.
- Plaintiffs alleged the injuries arose from use of Amanda's vehicle, since the children were restrained in car seats when the fire occurred.
- The trial court granted QBE's summary judgment, holding the incident did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of Amanda's vehicle.
- The appellate court reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact whether the injuries flowed from the use of the automobile and remanded for further proceedings.
- Concurrence emphasized that use of the car seats and the vehicle sufficed to constitute use, leaving factual questions about supervision as disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the UM/UIM policy cover this injury? | Arceneauxs: injuries arose from use of the vehicle. | QBE: injuries not arising from ownership, maintenance, or use. | No dispositive ruling on coverage; material fact disputed on use |
| Was the alleged supervision failure a legal cause under Carter's test? | Amanda's supervision could be a legal cause of injuries. | Policy requires use-related injury; supervision is not necessarily use. | Genuine issue of material fact exists on use and causation under Carter |
| Did the record establish that the injuries flowed from the use of the vehicle? | Strapping children into car seats and using the vehicle ties injuries to vehicle use. | No clear link between use and injury under policy language. | Yes, material fact remains as to whether injuries flowed from use |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, 423 So.2d 1080 (La. 1982) (two-step Carter test for 'arising-out-of-use' claims)
- Kessler v. AMICA Mutual Insurance Co., 573 So.2d 476 (La. 1991) (separate legal-cause and use considerations; not all conduct constitutes use)
- Bernard v. Ellis, 111 So.3d 995 (La. 2012) (insurance policy interpretation; liberal construction of UM coverage; exclusions must be clear)
- Edwards v. Horstman, 687 So.2d 1007 (La. 1997) (use requires the conduct to be essential to liability and flow from vehicle use)
- Otwell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 914 So.2d 100 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (duty of parents to supervise to prevent injury)