Rapalo-Alfaro v. Lee
173 So. 3d 1174
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rapalo-Alfaro was insured under a Lloyds automobile liability policy (June 28, 2010); he later sued the at-fault driver and added Lloyds claiming uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- Lloyds produced the application, the Commissioner-prescribed UM rejection form (electronically completed), and a digital signature acceptance confirmation showing Rapalo-Alfaro’s electronic signature/initials and digital ID.
- Rapalo-Alfaro opposed summary judgment on legal grounds, arguing the electronic UM rejection was invalid because he did not consent to electronic signing, the electronic entries (name/date/initials/signature) were not attributable to him, and pre-filled fields prevented meaningful selection; he submitted no affidavits or testimony.
- The trial court admitted the digital-signature confirmation, granted Lloyds’ second motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Rapalo-Alfaro’s claims with prejudice.
- On de novo review, the appellate court affirmed: because Rapalo-Alfaro did not deny (via affidavit/testimony) the electronic signature or completion, the statutory presumption from a properly completed UM rejection form stood and no genuine fact issue existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of electronic UM rejection/signature | Rapalo-Alfaro: insurer failed to prove he agreed to electronic execution | Lloyds: electronic signature law treats e-signatures as valid; evidence shows his digital acceptance and e-signatures | Court: e-signatures have legal effect; absent sworn denial by Rapalo-Alfaro, no factual dispute; held for Lloyds |
| Attribution of name/date/initials/signature on form | Rapalo-Alfaro: entries not shown to be attributable to him | Lloyds: form and digital acceptance link entries to him; statutory presumption applies | Court: Rapalo-Alfaro submitted no affidavit/testimony to rebut presumption; held for Lloyds |
| Whether electronic format prevented meaningful selection | Rapalo-Alfaro: pre-filled "N/A" on lines 1–3 forced selection of rejection, so form violated La. R.S. 22:1295 | Lloyds: form complied with statutory form; no evidence Rapalo-Alfaro asked for coverage or was confused | Court: Johnson (distinguishable); because Rapalo-Alfaro offered no factual rebuttal, court refused to speculate; held for Lloyds |
| Admissibility/use of Digital Signature Acceptance Confirmation | Rapalo-Alfaro: trial court erred in admitting the confirmation | Lloyds: confirmation is evidence of e-signature acceptance and attribution | Court: did not need to resolve contested admissibility because signature not denied; decline to reverse on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Green ex rel. Peterson v. Johnson, 149 So.3d 766 (La. 2014) (UM coverage is implied into policies and governed by statute)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (defines required tasks to complete the Commissioner-prescribed UM rejection form; statutory exceptions construed strictly)
- Bonck v. White, 115 So.3d 651 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (Uniform Electronic Transactions Act applies to automobile insurance forms; electronic signatures and initialing are valid)
- Daigle v. Authement, 691 So.2d 1213 (La. 1997) (purpose of UM coverage is full recovery against inadequately insured tortfeasors)
- Terrell v. Fontenot, 96 So.3d 658 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (properly completed UM rejection form creates rebuttable presumption that insured knowingly rejected coverage)
- Harper v. Direct General Ins. Co., 2 So.3d 418 (La. 2009) (reinforces statutory requirements for UM rejection form)