Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana v. National General Insurance Company
56,228-CA
La. Ct. App.May 21, 2025Background
- This case involves a car accident in Louisiana where Samuel Jackson, the at-fault driver, was driving a coworker (Atkins)'s Ford F-150 after Jackson's own Toyota 4Runner became inoperable.
- Jackson claimed he borrowed the F-150 because his 4Runner was being repaired for at least two months and was not available to him.
- The F-150 was insured by Safeway, while Jackson’s 4Runner (not involved in the accident) was insured by National General Insurance Company (NGIC).
- Safeway paid the damages to the injured party (Presley), then sued NGIC seeking primary or pro rata contribution, arguing that NGIC owed coverage as Jackson's own insurer through the temporary substitute provision.
- The trial court found that Safeway's policy was primary, concluding that the F-150 did not qualify as a “temporary substitute” under NGIC’s policy because Jackson's 4Runner was out of service for far longer than NGIC’s 60-day limit and had not been in his possession for years.
- Safeway appealed, primarily arguing interpretation of the insurance statute and contract provisions, and the court affirmed the trial ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of La. R.S. 22:1296.1 (retroactivity) | Trial court erred applying statute not yet in effect. | No evidence court relied solely on new statute; use of it was clerical. | Statute not applied retroactively, analysis under old law. |
| Whether F-150 was a "temporary substitute" under statute | F-150 qualifies and NGIC should provide primary coverage. | F-150 does not qualify due to duration (>60 days); not temporary. | F-150 not a "temporary substitute"; NGIC not primarily responsible. |
| Application of "other insurance" clauses | Trial court should apply pro-rata or excess clauses. | NGIC coverage is excess, Safeway is primary. | Safeway primary, NGIC excess per policy terms. |
| Policy interpretation—ambiguous language | Ambiguity should favor coverage under Jackson's policy. | Terms are clear, not ambiguous in context. | Policy terms enforce NGIC 60-day limit and requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana v. Gov. Employees Ins. Co., 361 So. 3d 1006 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2022) (construction of insurance policy per contract principles)
- Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., 740 So. 2d 603 (La. 1999) (insurers may not limit coverage contrary to statute/public policy)
- Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 956 So. 2d 583 (La. 2007) (ambiguities construed against insurer)
- Maynor v. Vosburg, 648 So. 2d 411 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1994) (excess insurance provisions apply only after primary exhausted)