123 So. 3d 204
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Patrick Williams, an employee, was a passenger in his employer M-N Utilities’ vehicle and was injured in a 2010 collision caused by an underinsured driver; tortfeasor’s insurer paid $15,000.
- Peerless issued uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage for the employer’s vehicle; Williams sued Peerless for UM benefits in excess of the tortfeasor’s limits.
- Peerless made an unconditional good-faith tender of $31,804, then moved for summary judgment arguing (1) workers’ compensation was Williams’s exclusive remedy and/or (2) the UM policy excluded coverage that would benefit a workers’ compensation insurer; Peerless also sought reimbursement of the tender.
- Williams cross-moved for summary judgment on UM limits, arguing the insurer failed to prove a valid written rejection or selection of lower UM limits, so UM limits should equal the $1 million liability limit.
- The district court granted Peerless’s summary judgment, denied Williams’s cross-motion, and ordered Williams to repay the $31,804. Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether workers’ compensation is Williams’s exclusive remedy barring UM recovery | Williams: No — employer’s UM insurer is a third party; R.S. 23:1101 preserves action against third persons | Peerless: Yes — workers’ comp is exclusive remedy for work injuries | Court: Reversed — employer’s UM insurer is a third person; workers’ comp does not bar UM claim (Johnson controls) |
| Whether the UM policy exclusion barring coverage that directly/indirectly benefits a workers’ compensation insurer precludes Williams’s UM claim | Williams: Exclusion targets reimbursement claims by compensation carriers, not injured employees | Peerless: Exclusion bars coverage because recovery would benefit the comp insurer | Court: Reversed — exclusion applies to insurers/self-insurers, not to employee’s direct UM claim; recovery wouldn’t relieve comp insurer and policy already excludes reimbursement |
| Whether Williams must reimburse Peerless for the $31,804 unconditional tender | Williams: No — unconditional good-faith tender under R.S. 22:1892 is owed to insured and should not be repaid | Peerless: Seeks reimbursement after court’s judgment in its favor | Court: Reversed/vacated — unconditional tender was proper and reimbursement order was erroneous |
| Proper amount of UM coverage under the policy | Williams: UM limits equal $1,000,000 because insurer failed to prove a valid written rejection/selection of lower limits | Peerless: Claims lower UM limits (submitted a signed form late and unauthenticated) | Court: Rendered for Williams — insurer failed to produce competent evidence of valid lower-limit selection; UM limits are $1,000,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 425 So.2d 224 (La. 1982) (employer’s UM insurer is a ‘third person’ liable notwithstanding workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joseph, 656 So.2d 1000 (La. 1995) (UM policy exclusion barring benefit to compensation insurers can validly bar a compensation insurer’s reimbursement claim)
- McDill v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 475 So.2d 1085 (La. 1985) (insurer may make an unconditional good-faith tender to insured under UM statutes)
- Gray v. Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co., 977 So.2d 839 (La. 2008) (insurer bears burden to prove valid written rejection/selection of lower UM limits)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)