182 So. 3d 1183
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- On January 27, 2014, Darryl Parker’s 2001 BMW was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by Laquida Taplin; Parker sued for property and personal injuries.
- Parker’s insurer was Affirmative Insurance Company; Parker alleged Affirmative provided comprehensive and collision coverage for the BMW and denied the property-damage claim in bad faith.
- Affirmative moved for summary judgment, submitting the policy (which excluded collision coverage for persons driving without a valid license) and a police report showing Parker lacked a driver’s license and was cited.
- Parker opposed, submitting an affidavit that he told an Affirmative agent when buying the policy that he had no license and the agent said he could still purchase the policy; he argued Affirmative knew and thus waived or is estopped from enforcing the exclusion.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Affirmative; the court of appeal affirmed, finding the policy unambiguously excluded collision coverage for unlicensed drivers and that Parker’s affidavit did not show detrimental reliance about the scope of coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Affirmative waived or is estopped from enforcing the policy exclusion barring collision coverage for drivers without a valid license | Parker: Agent told him he could buy the policy despite no license; Affirmative therefore knew and cannot enforce the exclusion (detrimental reliance/waiver) | Affirmative: Policy unambiguously excludes collision for unlicensed drivers; no agent representation about coverage scope; undisputed Parker lacked a license | Court: Summary judgment for Affirmative — exclusion applies and Parker failed to prove detrimental reliance or waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 128 So.3d 471 (summary judgment standard in appellate review)
- Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 930 So.2d 906 (insurance policy interpretation is a legal question for summary judgment)
- Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 630 So.2d 759 (contract interpretation to determine parties’ intent)
- Green v. Johnson, 149 So.3d 766 (clear policy language must be enforced as written)
- Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 634 So.2d 1180 (insurer may limit coverage unless conflicting with statute or public policy)
- Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 907 So.2d 37 (elements and purpose of detrimental reliance)