241 So. 3d 1188
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 16, 2007 Dave Peterson was killed while riding a motorcycle he co‑owned with Benjamin Gibson; Peterson lived with Ashanti Green. The motorcycle was insured under Green's American Southern policy (which included UM coverage) and Gibson had an Allstate auto policy (which included UM coverage).
- Green, as tutrix for Peterson’s minor children, sued for survival and wrongful death and alleged UM coverage under both policies; American Southern was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation but Green reserved rights against other insurers.
- Allstate moved for summary judgment arguing its UM coverage was excluded by a contractual provision that denies UM where the owned vehicle is insured for UM under another policy (an "escape"/other‑insurance clause).
- Trial court granted Allstate’s third motion for summary judgment and dismissed Green’s claims against Allstate; Green appealed.
- Majority held the Allstate UM provision unambiguously excluded coverage because the motorcycle was insured for UM under American Southern, and Peterson was not an insured under Allstate’s liability definitions for purposes of statutory UM coverage; the exclusion did not violate public policy.
- Judge Whipple dissented, concluding the Allstate UM section contains internally inconsistent "other insurance" provisions (an escape clause versus pro rata/excess language) creating an ambiguity that must be construed for the insured, so summary judgment for Allstate was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allstate's UM policy provides coverage for Peterson's death | Green: policy extends UM to the newly acquired/co‑owned motorcycle; UM available under Allstate | Allstate: policy exclusion bars UM where owned vehicle is insured for UM under another policy | Held for Allstate: exclusion unambiguous; motorcycle insured under American Southern so Allstate UM excluded |
| Whether Allstate's UM exclusion conflicts with its own "other insurance" clause (ambiguity) | Green: clauses conflict (escape vs pro rata/excess), creating ambiguity to be construed for insured | Allstate: clauses are harmonizable; exclusion applies and other‑insurance clause not implicated | Majority: no ambiguity, exclusion controls; Dissent: ambiguity exists and favors insured (would reverse) |
| Whether statutory UM coverage must apply despite policy exclusion | Green: public policy/UM statute prevents such "back‑door" rejection or usurpation of insured's choice of carrier | Allstate: policy terms permitted and anti‑stacking/statute allow limiting recovery to one policy | Held: statute does not mandate coverage here; anti‑stacking and definitions preclude additional coverage |
| Whether the exclusion violates public policy or the insured's right to elect which UM policy to pursue | Green: exclusion unlawfully circumvents statutory rejection/selection rules and usurps insured's choice | Allstate: exclusion mirrors anti‑stacking law and is not contrary to public policy; insured had accepted American Southern limits | Held: exclusion upheld as consistent with anti‑stacking and public policy (majority); dissent disagrees on ambiguity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutsinger v. Redfern, 12 So.3d 945 (La. 2009) (UM coverage aims to effectuate complete reparation)
- Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La. 1982) (purpose of UM coverage explained)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (UM exclusions must be clear and unmistakable)
- Green ex rel. Peterson v. Johnson, 149 So.3d 766 (La. 2014) (prior Supreme Court treatment of insured status under Allstate UM provisions)
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (insured status under liability policy definitions relevant to UM)
- Wyatt v. Robin, 518 So.2d 494 (La. 1988) (insured may choose which UM policy to pursue; limits to stacking discussed)
- Boullt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 752 So.2d 739 (La. 1999) (anti‑stacking framework and exception for occupants of non‑owned vehicles)
- Pardue v. Dean, 515 So.2d 543 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1987) (where multiple UM policies cover same vehicle, policies may be treated as primary)