Greene v. Zurich American Insurance Co, 6:19-cv-00018

Plaintiff Forrest Greene, a Louisiana resident, was injured in an automobile accident in Texas in April 2017 while on a temporary assignment for his employer, Forum Energy Technologies.
Forum (the named insured) and Zurich issued an employer commercial auto policy through a Houston, Texas producer; the policy included a specific "Louisiana Uninsured Motorists Coverage" endorsement for covered autos licensed or principally garaged in Louisiana.
Plaintiffs sue Zurich (the UM/underinsured insurer) for failure to make a timely unconditional tender and for penalties/attorneys’ fees under Louisiana UM law; Zurich removed based on diversity jurisdiction.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on choice of law (whether Louisiana or Texas law governs the UM claims); Plaintiffs also moved to strike certain declarations and Zurich’s summary-judgment filing was challenged as untimely.
The magistrate judge denied the motion to strike (found declarations acceptable and no prejudice from a one-day late filing) and recommended granting Plaintiffs’ summary judgment: applying Louisiana law because Zurich should have foreseen Louisiana UM law would apply given the endorsement and the vehicle/insured contacts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which state's UM law governs (Louisiana or Texas)?	Louisiana law applies because Greene is a Louisiana resident, vehicle was principally used/garaged in LA, and the policy contains a LA UM endorsement.	Texas law applies because the policy was formed and issued in Texas and delivered there.	Louisiana law governs; grant Pls' SJ, deny Zurich's SJ.
Timeliness of Zurich's SJ filing	N/A (argued Zurich gained unfair advantage).	Filing one day late does not prejudice Plaintiffs; court has discretion to accept.	Denied strike on timeliness grounds; court exercised discretion to consider Zurich's filing.
Admissibility of unsworn declarations (adjuster and Forum employee)	Declarations should be stricken as unsworn.	Declarations comply with 28 U.S.C. §1746 and convey personal knowledge; corroborated by record.	Declarations not stricken; may be considered.
Whether Texas contract formation overrides LA interests	N/A (Plaintiffs argue LA interest prevails).	Zurich: contractual expectations and Texas law should control.	Rejected; existence of LA UM endorsement and LA contacts mean LA interests would be most impaired if LA law not applied.

Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773 (La. 2005) (establishes Louisiana choice-of-law framework for insurance disputes)
Abraham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 609 (5th Cir. 2006) (applies Champagne factors and lists relevant contacts for UM choice-of-law)
Jones v. Am. Fire-Indem. Ins. Co., 442 So.2d 772 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983) (applies Louisiana UM law where vehicle was garaged/registered in LA despite policy issued in TX)
Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 907 So.2d 122 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (applies LA law to employer fleet policy that anticipated multistate use and affected LA residents)
Hamburger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 2004) (explains Texas insurer duties under good faith standard)