Bernard v. Ellis
2012 La. LEXIS 1956
La.2012Background
- Norell Bernard and Andrea Bernard, as guest passengers, were in Ann Bernard’s vehicle when an uninsured driver (Ellis) ran a stop sign and caused the collision.
- Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company issued the policy to Ann Bernard with UM coverage under Part C and liability coverage under Part A.
- Imperial moved for partial summary judgment against Norell and Andrea on the basis that guest passengers who are not in the named insured’s household are not UM insureds.
- The trial court denied Imperial’s motion; on appeal, the court of appeal initially denied writs and held guest passengers were insureds; Imperial sought this Court’s writ.
- This Court granted the writ to resolve whether guest passengers are liability insureds under Imperial’s policy and thus entitled to UM coverage.
- The majority ultimately held that the plaintiffs are liability insureds under the liability portion of the policy and thus entitled to UM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs are insureds under Imperial’s liability provision | Bernard plaintiffs are using the vehicle as permissive guests. | Imperial contends entitlement requires actual arisIng-out-of-use and limits coverage to household residents. | Yes; plaintiffs are liability insureds and entitled to UM coverage under the policy. |
| Whether UM coverage attaches when plaintiffs are not household residents | UM attaches if insured under liability coverage per Magnon/Howell and liberal construction. | UM is limited to household-resident insureds under Part C despite liability-insured status. | UM coverage extends to plaintiffs through liability-insured status per liberal construction of statute. |
| How should the policy’s 'arising out of' and 'use' language be interpreted for guest passengers | Use includes passenger riding; injury flowed from use of vehicle. | Arising-out-of-use requires the accident to arise from the insured's use in a causal sense. | Arising out of use is liberally construed; a nexus between use and accident suffices for guest passengers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Filipski v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 25 So.3d 742 (La. 2009) (Affirms UM coverage attaches via liability-insured status)
- Magnon v. Collins, 739 So.2d 191 (La. 1999) (UM coverage tied to liability insureds; liberal construction favored)
- Howell v. Balboa Ins. Co., 564 So.2d 298 (La. 1990) (UM attaches to insured persons; policy must be liberally construed)
- Carter v. City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, 423 So.2d 1080 (La. 1982) (Arising-out-of-use analysis for liability; dual-question framework)
- Kessler v. Arnica Mut. Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 476 (La. 1991) (Uninsured/underinsured analysis; use vs. non-use distinction)
- Batiste v. Dunn, 68 So.3d 673 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2011) (Similar policy language; supports view that guest passengers may be covered)
- Breaux v. GEICO, 869 So.2d 1335 (La. 1979) (Limitations of UM/liability interplay clarified)
- Taylor v. Rowell, 736 So.2d 812 (La. 1999) (Public policy favoring UM coverage; liberal construction)
- Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La. 1982) ( UM purpose and construction principles)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (UM policy liberally construed to maximize protection)