201 So. 3d 1007
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Kim Simon was rear-ended on July 13, 2011 while driving her personal vehicle on the job for employer LHC Group, Inc. and sued for damages.
- LHC had a business auto liability policy issued by National Union that limited uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage to “owned ‘autos’ only.”
- Simon’s personal vehicle was not owned by LHC and was not listed or specifically described in LHC’s policy declarations as an owned/covered vehicle.
- Simon amended her petition to add National, asserting she was entitled to UM coverage under LHC’s policy for injuries sustained while driving her personal vehicle in the course of employment.
- National moved for summary judgment arguing the policy did not provide UM coverage for Simon because her vehicle was not a “covered auto”; the trial court granted judgment for National and dismissed it with prejudice.
- Simon appealed, contending the policy failed to describe covered vehicles as required by La. R.S. 22:1295(L)(e), which she argued triggered mandatory UM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LHC’s policy provides UM coverage to an employee driving a personal vehicle not owned by the named insured | Simon: UM coverage should apply because the policy did not describe specific motor vehicles per La. R.S. 22:1295(L)(e) | National: Policy limited UM to owned autos; Simon’s personal vehicle was not an owned/covered auto, so no UM applies | Court: No UM coverage — policy limited UM to owned autos and Simon’s vehicle was not listed/described |
| Whether statutory UM coverage is mandated because the policy did not describe specific motor vehicles | Simon: Statute’s final sentence creates an exception requiring UM when the policy fails to describe vehicles | National: The policy did describe the owned autos that were covered; the statutory exception does not require coverage for employee’s personal vehicle not listed | Court: Statutory exception does not mandate UM for an employee occupying a personal vehicle not described in the employer’s policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Richard v. Hall, 874 So.2d 131 (La. 2004) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Bonin v. Westport Ins. Corp., 930 So.2d 906 (La. 2006) (insurance-policy interpretation appropriate on summary judgment)
- Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 848 So.2d 577 (La. 2003) (contract interpretation rules and strict construction against insurer)
- Carrier v. Reliance Ins. Co., 759 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (policy should not be construed unreasonably or to achieve absurd results)
- Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 630 So.2d 759 (La. 1994) (insurer may limit liability if consistent with statute and public policy)
- Galliano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 606 So.2d 580 (La. App. 1992) (public policy favors UM but statutory limits are valid)
- Green v. Johnson, 149 So.3d 766 (La. 2014) (two-step analysis: first policy terms, then statute for UM coverage)
- Anderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 42 So.3d 1140 (La. App. 2010) (insurer can limit coverage if clear and not statutory conflict)
- Halphen v. Borja, 961 So.2d 1201 (La. App. 2007) (UM precluded for employee in personal vehicle not listed in employer’s policy)