Batiste v. Dunn
68 So. 3d 673
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- This case involves guest passengers in a vehicle insured by Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. who seek UM coverage after an August 24, 2008 accident in Tangipahoa Parish.
- Erica Batiste held the vehicle’s only named insured status on the policy; Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor were not related to her.
- The accident occurred with Matthew Bazile driving Bazile’s vehicle, owned by Monica Dunn.
- Imperial moved for partial summary judgment arguing Taylor and Taylor were not insured persons under the policy’s UM provisions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Imperial, holding no UM coverage for the two plaintiffs, and the decision was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor and Taylor qualify for UM coverage as insured persons. | Taylor/Taylor argue they are insured under liability and thus entitled to UM. | Imperial contends they are not insured under the liability definition since they are not related to the named insured. | No UM coverage because they are not insured persons under Part C. |
| Whether the policy language complies with the Louisiana UM statute. | UM follows the insured; occupancy should not defeat UM rights. | UM follows the person, not the vehicle; policy unambiguously limits coverage. | Policy language does not violate the UM statute; UM coverage requires insured status under liability. |
| Whether UM coverage attaches only if the claimant is an insured under liability. | Guests riding with permission could be insured under Part A liability. | Coverage depends on meeting the specific insured definition under liability. | UM coverage is contingent on being an insured under liability; plaintiffs do not meet that definition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magnon v. Collins, 739 So.2d 191 (La. 1999) ( UM follows the person; insured status under liability is required for UM)
- Lambert v. Lavigne, 923 So.2d 704 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (insured status under liability governs UM entitlement)
- Howell v. Balboa Ins. Co., 564 So.2d 298 (La. 1990) (UM coverage attaches to the insured person, not the vehicle)
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (interpretation of policy language; avoid creating ambiguities)
- Grace v. Crespo, 970 So.2d 1007 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (construction of insurance contracts; respect unambiguous terms)