Scarborough v. Randle
2013 WL 440092
La. Ct. App. 5th2013Background
- Plaintiffs Scarboroughs sued after a February 25, 2008 auto accident involving a van insured by General Insurance Company of America (GICA) and driven by Scarborough.
- Bridgefield Casualty Insurance intervened in subrogation for workers’ compensation benefits already paid to Scarborough.
- The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on whether UM coverage under GICA’s policy was $100,000 or equal to the liability limits of $1,000,000.
- The trial court denied the Scarboroughs’ summary judgment and granted GICA’s, finding a valid UM rejection.
- The issue centered on whether the UM rejection form complied with statutory requirements and was valid, despite minor form variations.
- The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding the rejection valid and enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the UM rejection form under Duncan requirements | Scarborough argues the form is invalid for not being the commissioner-prescribed form. | GICA contends the form substantially complies with Duncan and is legally effective. | Form valid; no legal error in granting summary judgment. |
| Correct named insured on the UM form | Name printed as Medical Technology of La., Inc. differs from actual entity; invalidates waiver. | Policy and form consistently identify the named insured; minor naming discrepancy is immaterial. | No merit; waiver remains valid. |
| Appropriate standard of review where facts are undisputed | De novo review should apply due to contested issues of fact. | No contested facts; review is for legal error in applying law to undisputed facts. | Legal-error standard applied; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Insurance Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (enumerated Duncan requirements for valid UM waiver)
- Lachney v. Hanover Insurance Co., 927 So.2d 380 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005) (reject form with minor deviations can still be valid)
- Jones v. Jones, 817 So.2d 454 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (omission of policy number on form not fatal when intent clear)
- Banquer v. Guidroz, 5 So.3d 206 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008) (Duncan requirements satisfied despite clerical errors; supreme court affirmed)
- Guillot v. Guillot, 92 So.3d 1212 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2012) (de novo vs. legal-error standard in summary judgment context)