Simmons v. G E I C O Insurance Co, 6:23-cv-00058

Background

This case arises from a fatal car accident on December 17, 2021, in which three of the Simmons’ children died and two other passengers were seriously injured.
The Simmons family was returning home from an Acadiana Christian School (ACS) basketball game; their son was a student/player for ACS.
Plaintiffs (the Simmons and the Darby families) sought insurance coverage under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Auto policies issued by Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company to ACS, arguing that they qualified as insureds under a “Broad Form Nonowned Vehicle Coverage” endorsement.
Plaintiffs previously lost on the question of coverage under the Commercial Business Auto Policy and now focus on the CGL’s endorsement relating to nonowned vehicles.
Three motions for summary judgment were at issue: Plaintiffs and Defendant both seeking judgments on insurance coverage, and Defendant moving on an anti-stacking statute as an alternative defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiffs’ Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether Lindy Simmons was an “authorized operator” under the nonowned vehicle endorsement	Lindy was acting at the request of ACS’s leaders for the benefit of ACS by transporting a player (her brother) to/from the game	No evidence ACS specifically requested Lindy drive; any request was limited to parents to transport students who couldn’t otherwise attend	Lindy was not an "authorized operator"; no coverage
Whether Dawn Simmons, as a passenger, qualified as an "authorized operator" using the vehicle	Argument that “use” includes passengers if done for ACS’s benefit and at their request	Same arguments as above; no ACS request that Dawn act as a driver or passenger for ACS’s benefit	Dawn was not an "authorized operator"; no coverage
Whether email/text communications constituted a “request” by ACS as required for coverage	Plaintiffs point to general references in an email and a vague text message from Christopher to Dawn	Emails and texts were limited in scope to volunteers for students needing rides; not a direct or specific request to the Simmons	Communications do not meet the contractual definition of "request"; no coverage
Applicability of underinsured/uninsured motorist (UM) coverage and anti-stacking provision	Plaintiffs: If insureds under policy, Louisiana law requires UM coverage	Brotherhood: Not insureds, so UM and anti-stacking issues are moot	Not insureds; UM coverage does not apply; anti-stacking motion denied as moot

Key Cases Cited

Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (articulated rules for interpreting insurance contracts under Louisiana law)
Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 634 So.2d 1180 (La. 1994) (intent of the parties governs insurance policy interpretation)
Roberts v. Cardinal Servs., 266 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard for summary judgment evidence)
Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 628 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) (movant’s and non-movant’s burdens on summary judgment)