194 So. 3d 80
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 16, 2012, plaintiffs (Andrea Weddborn and family) were injured in a hit-and-run. Weddborn had two overlapping auto policies in effect at the time: National (Nov. 4, 2012–May 4, 2013) and Affirmative (Dec. 14, 2012–June 12, 2013).
- Plaintiffs sued both insurers alleging each issued policies that provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage; both insurers moved for summary judgment on grounds that UM had been rejected.
- Each insurer produced a UM rejection form in the policy files: National’s form bore a handwritten signature (Nov. 2, 2012); Affirmative’s form bore electronic initials/signature (Dec. 11, 2012).
- Weddborn submitted sworn affidavits denying she signed or authorized the UM rejection forms, alleging forgery/fraud and describing how she procured the policies (in person, handwritten documents) and did not sign electronically.
- Trial court granted both insurers’ summary judgments. On de novo review, the court of appeal reversed both judgments and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact created by Weddborn’s sworn denials that the insurers did not sufficiently rebut.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of UM rejection forms | Weddborn denies executing or authorizing the rejection forms; claims forgery/fraud | Insurers produced completed, properly prescribed UM selection forms showing rejection | Reversed: insured’s sworn denial creates credibility dispute; insurers’ affidavits merely parroting their files did not eliminate the factual dispute |
| Burden of proof on summary judgment | Denial by insured shifts issue to insurers to produce admissible proof of execution | Insurers contend the signed/prescribed forms create rebuttable presumption of valid rejection | Held for plaintiff on summary judgment standard: insurers must do more than submit policy copies when insured presents affidavit denying execution |
| Electronic signatures | Weddborn denies any electronic signing and says she applied in person | Insurers rely on validity of electronic signatures under Louisiana law / Electronic Transactions Act | Court: electronic signatures can be valid, but a sworn denial still creates a material fact issue that precludes summary judgment unless rebutted |
| Automatic termination (National) | Weddborn: National policy remained in effect; cancellations must follow policy/statutory grounds | National: its automatic-termination clause terminated its policy when insured obtained Affirmative coverage | Court: clause ambiguous and not conspicuous; cancellation section does not list obtaining other insurance as ground; clause did not terminate National policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (prescribed UM-selection form requirements and that a properly completed signed form creates a rebuttable presumption of knowing rejection)
- Bonck v. White, 115 So.3d 651 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (electronic signatures may be valid but insured’s affidavit denying execution creates factual dispute precluding summary judgment)
- Rapalo-Alfaro v. Lee, 173 So.3d 1174 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (properly completed UM waiver creates rebuttable presumption; insured must specifically deny execution to create dispute)
- Tate v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 929 So.2d 188 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2006) (when credibility is contested on material fact, summary judgment is improper)
- Motors Ins. Corp. v. Bodie, 770 F. Supp. 547 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (automatic-termination clause ambiguous and not conspicuous; ambiguous insurance provisions construed for insured)