96 So. 3d 547
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Rosa Peña sues insurer USAgencies for uninsured/underinsured motorist (UMBI) coverage, seeking to obtain UMBI for a 2008 accident.
- USAgencies moved for summary judgment arguing Peña validly waived UMBI by signing the UMBI Coverage Form.
- Document review showed Peña signed the UMBI Coverage Form indicating rejection; Fausto Justo listed as Named Insured on the form; Peña signed the form but Justo did not.
- Peña asserted the UMBI Form was invalid because it was not signed by the named insured or legal representative, or Peña lacked authority to sign.
- Trial court denied the first motion; after discovery, USAgencies filed a second MSJ arguing Peña as an additional insured had authority to sign and reject UMBI.
- Trial court granted the second MSJ, concluding Peña was an insured named in the policy with the authority to reject UMBI; Peña appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peña validly rejected UMBI as an insured named in the policy | Peña lacked authority; the form signed by Peña did not name her as the insured or legal representative. | Any insured named in the policy may reject UMBI by signing the prescribed form. | Yes; Peña validly rejected UMBI as an insured named in the policy. |
| Whether the UMBI Coverage Form complies with statutory requirements | Form was invalid because not signed by the named insured (Justo) or his legal representative. | Form met statutory tasks (sign, date, policy number, insured name) and thus creates a presumption of knowing rejection. | Yes; the form complied and created a presumption Peña knowingly rejected UMBI. |
| Whether Peña’s lack of fluency in English undermines the waiver | Peña could not read/understand English; waiver invalid under Duong v. Salas. | Facts align with Rizzo v. Ward; Peña understood enough to sign, and she accompanied Justo to purchase insurance. | No; the waiver was valid under the circumstances. |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of coverage rejection | Genuine issues exist about authority to sign and understanding of the form. | Form showed valid rejection by an insured named in the policy, shifting burden to Peña to rebut presumption. | No; the evidence supported valid rejection of UMBI and entry of judgment for defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnette v. Robles, 740 So.2d 261 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1999) (spouse can reject UMBI as an insured named in policy)
- Tucker v. Valentin, 807 So.2d 292 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (spouse signs for husband; unsigned named insured can still reject)
- Bel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 459 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (any insured named in policy may reject UMBI coverage)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Insurance Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (six tasks required for UMBI Coverage Form; supports form validity analysis)
- Harper v. Direct General Ins. Co., 2 So.3d 418 (La. 2009) (form validity when named insured name is printed and legal representative signs)
- Rizzo v. Ward, 32 So.3d 986 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (valid rejection of UMBI despite language limitations, under similar facts)
- Duong v. Salas, 877 So.2d 269 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2004) (invalid waiver when insured cannot read/understand English)
- Coleman v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 6 So.3d 179 (La. 2009) (documentary knowledge presumption for signed instruments)
- Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 908 So.2d 1 (La. 2005) (clarity and conspicuousness of waiver terms)