119 So. 3d 725
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cao sued Liberty Mutual, David Singletary, and Tara Singletary for injuries from a 2009 car crash involving a 1990 Buick LeSabre purportedly insured by Liberty Mutual.
- Liberty Mutual answered; Tara and David Singletary did not appear or answer.
- At trial, Cao and Liberty Mutual stipulated to an insurance policy under Liberty Mutual, but the policy itself was never admitted into evidence.
- The trial was a bench trial; Cao testified about the accident and his injuries, and medical records were admitted; no other witnesses or vehicle details were presented.
- Liberty Mutual moved for directed verdict after Cao rested; the trial court denied, then later awarded Cao $10,000 and dismissed other defendants with prejudice.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Cao failed to prove coverage and permissive use, and vacated the $10,000 judgment; the dissent argued the stipulation should support coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying involuntary dismissal. | Cao contends evidence showed Liberty Mutual insured the vehicle involved. | Liberty Mutual argues Cao failed to prove the driver, owner, vehicle, and permissive use; the stipulation alone was insufficient. | Reversed; insufficiency of proof warrants dismissal with prejudice. |
| Whether Cao proved coverage and permissive use under the insurer's policy. | Cao argues the policy stipulation suffices to show coverage for the accident. | Liberty Mutual contends no proof of coverage or permissive use was offered; only a general stipulation to a policy existed. | Held: Cao failed to prove coverage or permissive use by a preponderance. |
| Effect of the trial stipulation to the Liberty Mutual policy. | Plaintiff relies on the stipulation to establish coverage for the accident. | Defendant argues the stipulation was either ambiguous or insufficient to establish coverage for this accident. | Held: The stipulation did not establish coverage; the record lacked admissible proof of the owner/driver and permissive use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercadel v. Tran, 635 So.2d 438 (La. 4th Cir. 1994) (burden to prove permissive use in insurer liability case)
- White v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 11 So.3d 21 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (negligence elements proven by preponderance; policy coverage matters)
- Brock v. Singleton, 65 So.3d 649 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (motion for involuntary dismissal standard in bench trials)
- Jackson v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n Cs. Ins. Co., 1 So.3d 512 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (evidence not properly offered cannot be considered on appeal)
- Ray Brandt Nissan, Inc. v. Gurvich, 726 So.2d 474 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (evidence not admitted cannot be reviewed; appellate record limits)