Sims v. USAgencies Casualty Insurance Co., 68 So. 3d 570

Nov. 22, 2007: Sims and Jackson collide; Jackson rear-ends Sims; Sims uninsured.
Jackson's insurer USAgencies initially denies claim citing No Pay, No Play statute; Sims claim asserted via attorney alleging intoxication of insured to avoid statute penalties.
USAgencies offers settlement: $10,000 for bodily injury and $4,126.81 for property damage.
May 15, 2008: USAgencies stops payment, withdraws due to belief insured was not intoxicated; No Pay, No Play statute applied to exclude coverage.
Sims sues May 28, 2008; trial court grants property damage award only, finds $4,126.81 unconditionally tendered; later amends judgment to dismiss all claims.
Appeal: Sims challenges summary judgment and seeks enforcement of a written settlement; court affirms dismissal and sustains No Pay, No Play-related rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a valid, enforceable written settlement?	Sims contends the attorney-drafted letters constituted a binding settlement.	USAgencies argues no written, signed agreement; letters insufficient to create a binding compromise.	No valid compromise existed; letters lacked Sims's signature/authorization; withdrawal and lack of writing prevented enforceable settlement.
Whether No Pay, No Play bars recovery and/or affects enforceability of the settlement	Intoxication assertion created an exception to No Pay, No Play, enabling recovery.	No Pay, No Play applies due to lack of insurance, and settlement cannot be enforced to bypass statute.	No enforceable settlement; No Pay, No Play applicable and precluded recovery; property damage tender upheld to Sims.
Whether USAgencies breached the settlement and whether penalties/fees were appropriate	Breach by failing to fund the agreed settlement within 30 days entitles penalties and fees.	No enforceable settlement existed; no breach liability for failure to fund nonexistent agreement.	No breach found; no enforceable compromise; penalties and attorney fees not awarded on grounds of lack of settlement.

Doiron v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 753 So.2d 357 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2000) (written settlement required; authorizations matter; draft may not suffice without signature)
Bennett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 665 So.2d 84 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1995) (writing requirement; attorney’s signature alone insufficient without express authorization)
Felder v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 405 So.2d 521 (La.1981) (compromise must be in writing; open-court recitation permissible in some contexts)
Lizama v. Williams, 759 So.2d 865 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2000) (attorney authority to settle; writing requirement for compromise)
City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 984 So.2d 746 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008) (settlement on record; distinctions when on-record agreement exists)