Green v. Johnson
149 So. 3d 766
La.2014Background
- On July 16, 2007 Dave Peterson died in a motorcycle collision while riding a motorcycle he co-owned with Benjamin Gibson.\
- Ashanti Green (for the minor children) sued the tortfeasor and named Allstate as Gibson’s automobile UM insurer; Allstate moved for summary judgment asserting no UM coverage for Peterson under Gibson’s policy.\
- The Allstate policy contained both liability (limited to "four wheel" autos) and express UM provisions; the UM section defined an "insured auto" to include any "land motor vehicle" and contained a 60-day after-acquired vehicle clause.\
- Allstate argued Peterson could only receive UM coverage if he qualified as an insured under the liability section; the district court granted summary judgment for Allstate on that basis, and the appellate court affirmed.\
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review, held the UM section’s express terms control, found the motorcycle fit the UM definition (a "land motor vehicle") and Peterson was an "insured person," reversed the summary judgment, and remanded.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Gibson’s Allstate policy provide UM coverage for Peterson despite no liability coverage for motorcycles? | Peterson qualifies as an "insured person" under the UM section and the co-owned motorcycle is an "insured auto" (a "land motor vehicle") under the UM after-acquired-vehicle clause. | UM coverage is unavailable because Peterson does not qualify as an insured under the liability portion, and liability definitions exclude motorcycles. | The UM section’s express terms govern; motorcycle fits UM "insured auto" definition and Peterson is an insured — summary judgment for Allstate reversed. |
| Proper analytical approach when a policy contains express UM coverage: contract or statutory analysis first? | Contractual UM provisions should be examined first; if express UM exists, statutory mandate need not be reached. | Relied on jurisprudence (Magnon line) suggesting entitlement to UM requires qualification as liability insured. | Courts must first analyze express policy UM provisions; statutory UM analysis (Magnon) is secondary and not reached if contractual UM exists. |
| Was Allstate entitled to summary judgment as mover? | N/A (Allstate argued no UM coverage under its policy). | Allstate argued it met its burden to show no UM coverage as a matter of law. | No — Allstate failed to establish absence of UM coverage under its policy; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| May the court consider an argument raised only at oral argument that the motorcycle was insured by another carrier, excluding Allstate’s coverage? | N/A (plaintiff opposed). | Allstate urged coverage excluded because the motorcycle was insured by American Southern. | Court refused to consider new, unbriefed arguments not supported in the appellate record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 956 So.2d 583 (La. 2007) (rules of contract interpretation govern insurance policies)\
- Magnon v. Collins, 739 So.2d 191 (La. 1999) (discusses statutory UM entitlement where policy lacks express UM coverage)\
- Filipski v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 25 So.3d 742 (La. 2009) (application of Magnon where policy did not provide contractual UM coverage)\
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (policy terms control UM coverage; statutory mandate limited to insureds under liability coverage)\
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (UM coverage read into policies unless validly rejected)\
- Catahoula Parish Sch. Bd. v. La. Mach. Rentals, LLC, 124 So.3d 1065 (La. 2013) (standard of review and summary judgment principles)