Clyde Boyett v. Redland Insurance Co.

Clyde BOYETT, al., et Plaintiffs-

Appellants CO.,

REDLAND INSURANCE

Defendant-Appellee. 12-31273.

No. Appeals, Court of

United States

Fifth Circuit. 27, 2014.

Jan. (argued),

Paul B. Law Offices of Wilkins Columbia, LA, Wilkins, Paul B. for Plain- tiffs-Appellants. Armand, (argued),

Donald J. Jr. Attor- Armand, Pettiette, Dunkelman, ney, Cromwell, L.L.P., Woodley, Byrd & LA, Shreveport, Defendant-Appellee. STEWART, proceed- and remand for further Judge, and verse Chief Before WIENER, ings opinion. consistent with this Judges. and Circuit DAVIS I. AND FACTS PROCEEDINGS WIENER, Judge: Circuit material facts in this case are sim- The case, Plaintiffs-Appel- diversity In this Boyett ple. employed Boeuf River as a and his Clyde Boyett (“Boyett”) lants 2009, Boyett truck driver. In March was Boy- wife, Boyett (together, “the Annie tractor-trailer for Boeuf driving flatbed inju- etts”), damages for seek to recover delivery for hauling River a load of lumber in an accident. Boyett ries incurred (“Car- Brick, to Carolina Lumber & Ltd. sought against Defendant Recovery Lumber”) in North Carolina. Boeuf olina Company Appellee Redland Insurance on the tractor- River maintained insurance (“Redland”) policy under an insurance trailer under a commercial lines Boyett’s employer, to Redland issued liability coverage. “Auto”1 provided which (“Boeuf River”). Boeuf River Ventures Louisiana, was issued in policy, The which granted court Redland’s The district any provisions not include whatsoever did motion after deter- summary judgment coverage. Neither was a relating to UM Boyetts could not avail mining that statutory coverage executed waiver of uninsured motorist themselves appended Louisiana law pursuant to (“UM”) by Title provided benefits Boyett that was policy.2 parties agree The Revised 1295 of the Louisiana Section that policy. an insured under (“Section 1295”). Although the Statutes The accident occurred North Carolina that court concluded Section district when, an Lum- employee while Carolina acci- to the North Carolina to unload the using ber was a forklift dent, offending unin- it ruled tractor-trailer, lumber from the some of machine, forklift, was not a sured fell, severely Boyett. striking injuring and of that purposes “motor vehicle” surgery attempt He underwent an Boyetts contend appeal, law. On right surgery his foot. That save preclud- the district court erred unsuccessful, however, and he underwent ground on the ing UM por- the lower surgery further remove uninsured forklift that caused the right leg. tion of his accident was not a “motor vehicle.” We against filed suit Redland a “motor vehicle” The hold that a forklift is for the in the District Court contemplation of Section United States within the Louisiana, alleging District of identification of the uninsured Western 1295’s an uninsured motor vehicle, re- that the forklift was and therefore underinsured policy either insured named in the an “Auto” to be a "land when 1. The defines vehicle, limits, designed coverage, rejects ‘trailer’ or semitrailer selects lower or se- roads; public [a]ny land vehi- for travel on coverage, economic-only in the manner lects subject compulsory or cle that is to a financial Section.”) (l)(a)(ii) provided of this in Item vehicle in- responsibility law or other motor 22:1295(l)(a)(ii) (“Such rejection, selec- principally where it is licensed or surance law limits, economic- or selection of tion of lower garaged.” The term “Auto” does not include only coverage made on a form shall be equipment” such as "forklifts.” “Mobile of insur- prescribed the commissioner ance.”). physically not be waiver need The statutory decline UM cover- 2. An insured policy. attached age properly waiver. See La. via a executed 22:1295(l)(a)(ii). (“[T]he 22:1295(l)(a)(i) Rev.Stat. applicable under this Section is though even 1295 the Louisiana-issued vehicle within law, Carolina, they to Louisiana the accident occurred North pursuant benefits entitled to offending were forklift is not a “mo- but an- policy. under Redland’s of that stat- tor vehicle” for swered, summary judg- then moved Boy- court ruled that the ute. The district (1) ment, that the did not claiming statutory not entitled to UM etts were coverage for the North provide liability They and dismissed their action. benefits (2) accident, and Louisiana statu- Carolina timely appeal respect a notice of with filed unavailable to the tory coverage was UM statutory holding the district court’s on to offending Boyetts because the forklift coverage. UM “motor vehicle” as the not an uninsured 1295(l)(a)(i). The term is used II. ANALYSIS summary granted partial court district Redland, ruling that judgment favor of Special A. of Review and Standard provide liability cover- the did not Erie Louisiana Considerations age.3 statutory coverage, to how- As ever, the court ruled that Redland had grant summary judg- a We review summary judgment failed to meet its bur- novo, applying ment de the same standard issue, den and denied the motion on Summary judgment as the district court.5 right re-urge reserving to Redland the appropriate genuine is when “there is no it at a later time. dispute any as to material fact and the a judgment movant is entitled to as matter subsequently held a status The court reviewing summary law.”6 a When parties to discuss conference with all judgment, we construe the evidence and on disposed whether the case could be light all inferences in the make reasonable practice.4 Following motions that confer- nonmoving party.7 most favorable to the ence, re-urged motion for sum- its “not limited to the district court’s We are mary judgment respect with grant summary judg- for its reasons coverage. The district court consid- motion, “may affirm the court’s ment” and district re-urged ered Redland’s then held (1) summary judgment ground Louisiana’s UM statute raised opposition a [3]2 3. The conceded in their has Title ever been used to define 22; (4) provide purposes vehicle for of Title did memorandum language what does the of Louisiana Re- liability coverage for the accident. 22:1295(l)(a)(iii) Statute mean when vised it states that "uninsured motorist entry memorializing 4. The minute this status any liability apply to cover- shall conference stated ing any which occurs in this state accident summary judgment and the motion for [i]n state”; a and involves resident of this thereto, parties opposition are asked to (5) when was the aforesaid added provide more on the forklift at information statute. here, specifically whether it is issue titled capable being Cambridge Integrated Grp., and whether it is driven on Servs. Inc. v. addition, Servs., Inc., parties highway. Integrated a In are 697 F.3d Concentra (1) (5th Cir.2012). following asked to issues: address controlling a what is the definition of motor 56(a). vehicle for of the uninsured mo- 6. Fed.R.Civ.P. Revised Statute torist 22:1295; (2) Storage, Amazing Spaces, a motor vehicle Inc. v. Metro Mini is forklift statute; (5th Cir.2010). 608 F.3d within the uninsured motorist making guess record.”8 In our supported Erie in this below

case, employ we must Louisiana’s civilian methodology in the same manner as would When, case, subject in this mat Supreme the Louisiana Court.14 As we jurisdiction diversity, is based on feder ter “[ujnder previously explained, have Louisi law of the apply al courts the substantive Code, ana’s Civil authoritative here, Louisiana.9 To deter forum state — ‘sources of legislation law are and cus law, the forum state’s we look first to mine ”15 Indeed, tom.’ in Louisiana “[[legislation highest of that state’s the final decisions expression legislative solemn here, Supreme court — Thus, will.”16 we must look first to Loui Court.10 the absence of determinative Constitution, codes, siana’s its and stat by decision that court on the issue law “ utes, because the ‘primary basis of law us, determine, must in our before we best (as a legislation, for civilian is and not we that court would judgment, how believe law) great body the common a of tradition As the Louisiana resolve issue.11 Su prior the form of decisions of the has addressed whether preme Court not ”17 courts.’ Unlike in systems, common law (1) the statute to out-of- applies state’s UM Law, foreign “[s]tare decisis is to the Civil accidents or a forklift can state including Nevertheless, Louisiana.”18 “in “motor uninsured underinsured vehicle” this[,] guided by eases such as we are 1295, meaning within decisions rendered appel guess” court had to make an “Erie district courts, particularly late when numerous to these appeal, as two issues.12 On we decisions are in a given accord on issue”— i.e., do jurisprudence must do the same and so de novo.13 constante19—“but we LP, Louisiana, 8. 534 F.3d 22 La. 727 Aryain pretation v. L.Rev. Wal-Mart Stores Tex. 473, (5th Rubin, Cir.2008). (1962)); 478 see also Alvin B. Hazards of Civilian Venturer in Federal Court: Travel and 64, 9. Erie R.R. Co. v. 304 U.S. Tompkins, 58 Railroad, Travail on the Erie La. 48 L.Rev. 817, (1938); S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 1188 Holt v. State (1988). 1369 188, (5th Co., 627 F.3d 191 Farm Fire & Cas. Cir.2010). 18. Amer. Int’l 352 F.3d at 260 Specialty, 988; Gas, (quoting Transcon. 953 F.2d at cit- Specialty Int’l v. Amer. Lines Ins. Co. Canal Co., ing Ardoin v. 360 Acc. & Indem. Hartford (5th Cir.2003). Co., 352 F.3d Indem. (internal (La.1978)) quota- omitted). tion marks Holt, 627 F.3d at 191. Supreme 19. The Court suc- has Id. cinctly summarized the civilian doctrine of follows; jurisprudence constante 13. Id. [Wjhile single binding decision is not 14. Amer. Int’l 352 F.3d at 260. Specialty, courts, our when a series of decisions form homoge- a constant stream of uniform and 1; (citing 15. Id. at 260-61 La. Civ.Code art. rulings having reasoning, nous the same Pipe Corp. Transp. Transcon. Gas Line Ins. applies oper- jurisprudence constante (5th 1992); F.2d Cir. A.N. authority. persuasive ates with considerable (2d Yiannopoulos, System Civil Law Thus, prior holdings by per- this court are ed.1999)). suasive, authoritative, expressions not the law. 2; Gas, 16. La. Civ.Code art. Transcon. Eagle Pipe Supply, v. Amerada Hess & Inc. F.2d at 988. (La.2011) (internal Corp., citations, Gas, (quoting quotation 17. Transcon. 953 F.2d at 988 marks and brackets omit- Tate, Jr., ted). Albert Techniques Judicial Inter- that was no issued in Louisiana and there by them.”20 strictly are not bound rejection statutory coverage, valid UM the Louisiana UM Statute B. Whether statutory are entitled Applies Accidents to Out-of-State coverage by operation they of law unless precluded are otherwise divested of or Boyetts assert appeal, On asserting from such entitlements. “correctly” determined district court accident, to this the UM statute support of its claim that Loui in North Carolina. though even occurred avail siana is not holding, not Although appeal it did accidents, Redland able out-of-state that Section does Redland insists 1295(l)(a)(iii), points to Section which If accidents.21 Red- extend to out-of-state Subparagraph “This and its re states: point, then we need land is correct on this for uninsured motorist cover quirements that a Boyetts’ contention not reach the age apply any liability shall or underin- forklift can be an uninsured covering any occurs in this accident which motor vehicle within the sured state and involves a resident of this state.” therefore consider first the statute. We argues provision that this serves correctly con- whether the district court pre “geographic as a limitation” which may apply that the statute to acci- cluded applying the from to vents UM statute that occur outside of Louisiana. dents that occur outside of Louisiana. accidents rejected The court this character statutory provides “Louisiana law for district 1295(l)(a)(iii), concluding ization purpose providing for the of of Section UM only recovery play ‘full for automobile accident vic- “will come into where damages foreign policy prong tims who caused a tort- there is and each suffer conjunctive met.” Both by adequate who is not covered the amendment is feasor ”22 Thus, history plain language of the liability insurance.’ “UM cover- the and the any propriety confirm the of the age will be read into automobile liabili- UM statute ”23 validly rejected.’ As it district court’s conclusion that Section 1295 ty policy ‘unless undisputed may is that Redland’s was extend to out-of-state accidents.24 Rubin, Gas, 988; injury liability provided by policy.” 953 F.2d at the La. Transcon. 22:1295(l)(a)(i). at La. L.Rev. 1378-79. Rev.Stat. (1) argument 21. Because Redland raised this Louisiana, starting point 24.“In the in ascer court, (2) prevail before the district was the taining statutory meaning language is the ing party summary judgment, Donaldson, the v. statute itself.” Keenan Luf seeking judgment in to alter or amend Jenrette, Inc., 569, (5th kin & 529 F.3d any way, obligated cross-appeal it was not to Cir.2008) (citing City New Orleans v. La. argument an alternative to raise this as Fund, 1, Ret. and Assessors’ 986 So.2d Relief ground affirming the district court's ulti (La.2007)). "given A statute's words are holding mate that the are not entitled generally prevailing meaning.” their La. Civ. statutory coverage. Sys., to UM See Teltech 11; Code art. 1:3. "When the (5th Bryant, Inc. v. 702 F.3d Cir. unambiguous appli- law is "clear and and its 2012). Thus, we consider Redland’s consequences,” cation not lead does to absurd apply that Section 1295 does not contention apply we it as written.” La. Civ.Code art. 9. to out-of-state accidents. language susceptible “When the of the law is however, meanings,” of different "it must be Gray Prop. v. Am. Nat’l & Cas. having interpreted best (La.2008). purpose conforms to the of the law.” La. 10; Pumphrey City statutory Civ.Code art. New Id. The amount of UM Orleans, (La.2006). bodily In must be "not less than the limits of ture could have enacted a law which under explicit- statute25 Prior to UM af- modern conflict of laws theories would [policies] delivered ly addressed “insurance in policies fect insurance written other delivery in this state with or issued for the accident occurs in Louisi- states when vehicle to respect ana.” in The garaged this state.”26 principally analyzed the Supreme Court Louisiana thereafter, Legisla Soon in this Snider v. Mur- scope of just adding present Section ture did Snider, the relevant insurance ray.27 1295(l)(a)(iii)31 thereby superseding issued and delivered Texas policy was Consequently, Snider. “now Louisiana’s Jerry agent to the by a Texas insured— applied foreign UM law can [sic] (“Snider”) was domiciled Snider —who policies in multistate cases when Texas; the vehicle listed was in accident occurs in Louisiana and then garaged Texas. Snider principally Subsequent a Louisiana residents32 volves Louisiana, where the accident moved opinions recognized that have occurred. Snider’s widow and children 1295(l)(a)(iii) adoption of Section “was sought predecessor to recover under the geographically intended to extend lan- Focusing plain 1295.28 on the scope coverage beyond cases where “by express guage of the which its issued in Louisiana and the ” purported] to affect insur- terms garaged in Louisiana.”33 Sec vehicle was 1295(l)(a)(iii) “delivered or issued for deliv- policies ance expands tion thus the reach Louisiana, in” the court ruled that the ery coverage to of Louisiana issued in policies statute did not extend the accident oc policies out-of-state when law, the states. Under Louisiana in Louisiana and a Louisiana other curs involves plaintiffs were thus barred from resident. It does not address Louisiana- Snider however, they al policies, The court nevertheless ven- issued as are recovering.29 1295(l)(a)(i).34 dicta, tured, Legisla- ready subject to Section “[pjerhaps in that essence, original). (emphasis in general purpose of 29. Id. at 1053 "the intent must, Legislature enacting the law if in Keenan, given possible, be effect.” 529 F.3d 30. Id. at 1053-54. 1209) (quoting Pumphrey, at at 573 925 So.2d omitted). (internal quotation marks time this was added to 31. At the statute, codified at La.Rev. the subsection was originally 25. The UM statute was numbered 22:1406(D)(l)(a)(iii). supra § See n. 25. Stat. redesignated § La.Rev.Stat. 22:1406. It was pursuant § La. La.Rev.Stat. 22:680 to 2003 Ward, 773, 779- Champagne v. 456, 1, 2009, January § Acts No. 3. Effective (La.2005) (bold original). again La.Rev.Stat. it was renumbered to 415, pursuant 22:1295 to 2008 La. Acts No. 356, Robinson, 10 So.3d 33. Nelson v. Randle, Scarborough § 1. See v. 109 So.3d Cir.2009); (La.App. 2d see also Willett v. Nat'l Cir.2013). (La.App. n. 1 3d Ins. 594 So.2d Fire & Marine 1992) (explaining that after (La.App. 3d Cir. Murray, v. 461 So.2d 26. See Snider longer lim the UM statute "is no amendment (La.1985) (quoting prior version of 1052 n. 1 policies only that are ited in its effect to those at the UM then codified state”). delivery in this delivered or issued for 22:1406(D)(1)). Chambliss, Wendling 34. See J., Id. Cir.2010) (Downing, (La.App. con- curring) (explaining that Section 1295(l)(a)(iii) ap- "exception an ... Id. at 1051-52. open Left was whether Section ambit of the statute to accidents that occur to accidents that occur Third, in Louisiana. reading Section of Louisiana. 1295(l)(a)(iii) outside in the manner Redland has suggested categorically prevent would Although Supreme Court from applying Louisiana’s UM law ever has never addressed whether UM stat- accidents, out-of-state even if the accident applicable only ute is when the accident state, residents, within the we are occurs satisfied involved Louisiana Louisi- issue, vehicles, if confronted with this poli- ana and Louisiana insurance reject argument court would Redland’s cies. Motor vehicle accidents with con- 1295(l)(a)(iii) Section serves as common, multiple tacts to states are so First, limitation.” “geographic well before no legis- there is basis to conclude that the legislature’s amendment that add- lature intended to waive Louisiana’s inter- 1295(l)(a)(iii), ed Section the Louisiana Su- in having apply est its law to a multistate preme recognized Court had that the stat- with significant accident Louisiana con- strong public ute “embodies a policy”35 tacts. “liberally and therefore must be construed Court, Supreme The Louisiana further- carry objective out of providing [its] more, recognized foreign has that a state’s

reparation injured through those no above, govern UM law an accident that oc- fault of their own.”36 As discussed nothing curs within Concomitantly, about the context of Section Louisiana.38 it 1295(l)(a)(iii)’s adoption suggests that follows that an accident occurs outside was intended to than restrict —rather ex- Louisiana does not vitiate Louisiana’s pand any way. law in interest that accident. As there is no —the 1295(l)(a)(iii) Indeed, pre-Section case law on-point decision from the Louisiana Su- held that the UM statute reads preme contrary,39 Court to the the district policies into issued Louisiana even when court correct in concluding that Sec- an accident occurs outside of the state.37 1295(l)(a)(iii) tion does not affect Louisi-

Second, policies, ana-issued insurance nothing plain language all of which 1295(l)(a)(iii) expressly Section limits the governed are instead plicability Champagne, (finding of Louisiana’s uninsured motorists 38. See 893 So.2d at 786 state”). only policies conducting law to analy- issued in this after a conflict-of-law sis, Mississippi applied though UM law even Roberts, 35. A.I.U. Ins. Co. v. 404 Louisiana). So.2d the accident occurred in (La. 1981). 949 39. To the extent that Redland relies on lan Co., guage from Hoefly an intermediate Louisiana court Emps. v. Gov't Ins. 418 So.2d (La.1982) appeal argue to (citing decision that Section Niemann v. Travel 1295(l)(a)(iii) Co., (La.1979); "geographic is a ers Ins. limitation” 368 So.2d 1003 e Ell Warren, language such dge is at best dicta. See Triche v. (La.App. 263 So.2d 912 3d Martin, Cir.1972); Co., (La.App. 1 Cir. v. Fed. Mut. Ins. Valdez 223, 2009) 1295(l)(a)(iii) (1969)). (holding that Section Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. "plainly application states that the statute’s is Shelby occurring See William McKenzie & H. Alston limited to accidents 'in this state' III, state”) involving Johnson 15 La. Civil Law (emphasis Treatise 4:4 a resident of this (4th 2012) ("The Triche, omitted). ed. Louisiana UM statute is the relevant was applicable to a delivery issued in Louisiana on not delivered or issued for in Louisi ana, registered an automobile in Louisiana even and the accident did not occur Louisi state.”) Thus, though the accident occurs in another ana. Id. at 649-50. the insured could (citing satisfy requirements Comeaux v. Penn. Gen. Ins. of either Section Cir.1986)). 1295(l)(a)(i) 1295(l)(a)(iii). (La.App. 3d or 1295(l)(a)(i).40 correctly qualify That court held to be insured motor vehicle. In may contrast, apply that Louisiana’s UM statute to stark the uninsured or underin- motor vehicle accidents that occur outside may any sured vehicle be vehicle from the vehicles”; of Louisiana. entire set “motor it is not restricted to membership any sub-set. a a C. Whether Forklift “Motor Ve- concluded, The district court at least hicle” implicitly, statute’s differentiation begin with the of the stat- We between the qualify machines that to be to determine a ute whether forklift be the insured motor vehicle and those that a vehicle” for “motor Section qualify to be the uninsured motor vehicle Although Section lacks deliberate, proceeded and analyze section, a it definitions states manda- “ the forklift under the ‘motor coverage shall be into “auto- tory UM read vehicle,’ as term is used without modi- liability ... [policies] de- mobile fication.” directly The do not ad- delivery livered or issued for in this state dress the difference between the two defi- respect designed with motor vehicle vehicle,” nitions of “motor but they do public highways required for use on and argue of the usage terms unmodified registered be in this state.”41 man- Such that term identifying when the uninsured datory coverage protects persons only vehicle. counters that “the legally “who are entitled to recover non- reasonable of the construction statute is to punitive damages opera- from or owners apply modifying language to the term tors of uninsured or underinsured ‘motor vehicle’ wherever it is used.” As sickness, bodily injury, vehicles because of generally registered forklifts are not disease, including resulting death there- are not required safety equip- to have the from.” The UM statute not define does necessary ment for a operate vehicle to vehicle,” it clearly “motor but does distin- legally highways e.g., on public head- — (1) guish between the insured motor vehi- tail lamps, lamps, stop lamps, signals turn (or cle and the uninsured underin- and rearview adopting Redland’s mirrors — sured) former, vehicle. defining When position would exclude forklift from the qualifies the UM statute the term “motor scope43 UM statute’s phrase vehicle” with for use “designed highways public interpreting to be “When all effect, in this state.” defining parts given When of a should be statute latter, however, interpretation making any part refers to “mo- and an tor vehicles” and modifying superfluous meaningless omits the lan- should guage. differently, Stated the set of avoided.”44 this axiom With vehicles,” only mind, interpretation “motor of those in we sub-set observe that “designed public for use on highways accepting definition of Redland’s “motor required registered to be in modifying this state” vehicle” make would See, 32:53, 32:303, ap- e.g., §§ 40. Whether Louisiana’s UM in fact 43. law 32:306, plies depends 32:304, in this multistate case on a and 32:354. analysis, not at conflict-of-law which issue is appeal. Champagne, in this See at Champagne, (citing 44. at First Nat’l Bank Boston v. Beckwith Mach. (La.1995)). 650 So.2d 1148 22:1295(l)(a)(i). 41. La.Rev.Stat. Id. suggests, we now must superflu- ele” as Redland phrase in Section whether the uninsured forklift meant to restrict determine legislature If the ous. unin- in fact a “motor vehicle” vehicle and the in this case is both the insured sub-set of vehicles the Louisiana UM statute. Given sured vehicle to the under highways and public on omission of definition of “designed for use Section 1295’s state,” vehicle,” in this required registered to be we turn to the canons of “motor the re- have included statutory interpretation then it need not to inform our Erie language that it em- limiting point.46 strictive on this When there is no guess vehicles that only those ploys to describe to binding point, Louisiana law on we look insured, Thus, motor vehicles. qualify as persuasive legal other authorities.47 all words of Section give full effect to first note that the Louisiana Su- We 1295(l)(a)(i), superfluous, that none is so preme presented Court has not been with legislature that the did we must conclude of what a motor question constitutes protective not to limit the statute’s intend statute; vehicle for the of the UM by scope only damages caused those neither has it been asked to define the or underinsured vehicles that uninsured in term “motor vehicle” as used that stat- highways “designed public are for use on controlling ute. In the of a Loui- absence to be this case, Supreme Court one source to siana state.” may turn other of the portions which we Supreme Court’s re- The Louisiana perti- that are Louisiana Revised Statutes peated exhortations to construe the UM coverage. Al- nent to such support statute in favor of insureds this though Highway Regulatory meant ex- interpretation: legislature The (“LHRA”)48 provisions Act contains the Thus, actly it must be what it wrote.45 governing regu- motor vehicles and traffic presumed recognized to have that motor lation, and includes a definition of “motor designed public vehicles not for use vehicle,” explicitly 1 of the LHRA injury pose “bodily roads still a risk of ... states that such definition they actually if are or death” when and Chapter.”49 in this “This when “used roads, leading body operated on those LHRA, Chapter” refers to the does which pas- drivers and their protect insured encompass the UM statute. not “other” sengers from the risk those and Redland neverthe Both unin- might motor vehicles turn out to be encourage us to scrutinize the defini less Thus, validating sured or underinsured. tion of “motor vehicle” within the LHRA asymmetrical treatment of insured ver- reaching holding today. recog our We plain sus uninsured motor vehicles nize that some decisions of the intermedi pro- of the UM statute does not Louisiana, courts of as well appellate ate result; contrary, duce an absurd summary court’s decision on district certainly it validating could. case, judgment guided this have been legisla purportedly that the the LHRA “indi Having concluded because legislature’s comprehension ture did not intend to define “motor vehi- cates] 845; Specialty, Gray, So.2d at see also 47. Amer. Int’l 352 F.3d at 260. See Hoef- 578; Co., ly, 418 So.2d at A.I.U. Ins. So.2d at 949. §§ 48. La.Rev.Stat. 32:1 32:399. 260; Specialty, 46. Amer. Int’l 352 F.3d at see § 32:1. 49. La.Rev.Stat. supra also n. 24. identifying the uninsured or un- poses ‘Motor of the term Vehi meaning ”50 machine under Section 1295. derinsured deciding, that Assuming, without cle.’ would be Supreme Court the LHRA defi- largely ignores LHRA, we acknowl to consult the inclined of “motor and instead cites nition vehicle” enough that its definitions are broad

edge requirements the LHRA that motor vehi- First, is de forklifts. “vehicle” to include satisfy operate cles must on Louisiana “every by device in the LHRA as fined highways, lights streets and such as and transport things may or be persons which forklift those mirrors.54 Because the lacks highway bridge, except features, Redland, a or upon public ed it was not de- insists by power operation human or used on the streets and signed devices moved pur- is not a “motor vehicle” for UM exclusively stationary rails or tracks. thus upon poses. a a ridden animal shall be bicycle A

vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be argument fails for two rea- Redland’s addition, a vehicle.”51 separate First, sons. it assumes the uninsured “every LHRA defines a “motor vehicle” as “designed motor vehicle must be for use every self-propelled, and vehicle which is and to be public highways on the propelled by pow which is electric vehicle state,” position in this a we wires, trolley from overhead Second, er obtained already rejected. have the stat- rails, upon excluding but operated but not provide utes that Redland cites additional bicycle.”52 Combining the be requirements a motorized must satisfied before legally operated of “vehicle” its def a “motor vehicle” be LHRA’s definition with highways. on Louisiana streets and If the produces very “motor vehicle” a inition of requirements, not meet those forklift did every definition of “motor vehicle”: broad oper- that it that means could be persons which self-propelled device roads, legally public not that ated transported upon public a things can come within the of “mo- fails to definition (1) Here, the forklift was self- highway. tor vehicle.” (3) (2) (lumber), things carried propelled, driving pub on a physically capable liability portion of its Turning road,53 a than interprets lic and is no less “device” citing case law that policy and Thus, a car or truck. the LHRA’s of the UM Red- provisions is other statutorily provid- urges conclusion that a land that we limit support definitions on the basis of pur provisions a “motor for the ed UM forklift is vehicle” under Mercury "land motor vehicle” or “automobile” 50. Thibodeaux v. St. Paul Ins. Cir.1971) policy). provisions an insurance (La.App. the UM 242 So.2d 3d (relying definition of “motor on the LHRA’s 32:1(92). having cycle” “every vehicle a seat or 51. La.Rev.Stat. — designed saddle for the use of rider 32:1(40). three wheels in con 52. La.Rev.Stat. travel on not more than ground, excluding a tact with the but trac motorcycle Boyett that he saw the Carolina a "mo attests tor”—to conclude that a pub- a employee the forklift on of the UM Lumber drive tor vehicle” within summary road before the accident. On take a more restricted lic "[t]o statute because judgment, all evidence in the motorcycle we construe view is not a motor vehi [that nonmoving party— pro light favorable to the most would render the uninsured motorist cle] here, worthless”); Boyetts. practically Lee v. tection see also Davis, (La.App. 5th Cir. 32:51, See, 2005) e.g., §§ 32:53 (holding, citing and the Thibodeaux LHRA, bicycle is not an uninsured 32:54. in specifically enumerated Section liability portion of a contested the within 1295. policy if does not policy such insurance According to Red- coverage.

address UM argu- to Redland’s second respect With land, statutory UM cov- imposition the ment, jurisprudence on which relies an insur- “judicial reformation of erage is a in of amend- longer good light is no law the intentions policy” “thwart[s] ance to the statute which were en- ments UM by subsequent to the cases relied on Consequently, Redland acted parties.” of the prior but to the issuance asserts, may of insurance be a contract and the occurrence of the policy instant minimum extent nec- only reformed to the September instant accident. Effective compliance in essary bring economic-only coverage “selection of result, As a concludes with Louisiana law. prescribed made on a form shall be Redland, excludes “mo- because its of insurance” —that by the commissioner “fork- equipment” includes bile —which is, any party’s a entitlement limit on forklifts liability coverage, lifts”—from damages may only be ob- punitive recover statutorily be from the should excluded executing a waiver in properly tained imposed coverage. UM compliance with Section strict (l)(a)(ii).58 And, support position, this the Louisiana Su- its efforts preme Court has stated Section 1295 emphasizes to deter- Redland first in “imposes not- [Louisiana] UM is an “insured” for person mine whether withstanding language policy, of the of the UM one must parties, pres- or the the intentions of the liability policy’s delineation of look premium charge ence or absence of a policy.55 an insured under that Sec- who is reading explicitly terms re- payment,” so ond, by analogy that the Redland observes garding liability statutorily imposed into for the First Appeal Louisiana Court vitiate 1295’s UM would Section contained employed language Circuit has For all of “strong public policy.” these liability portions policies to limit reasons, impose we decline to limits on ability punitive an to recover insured’s statutory coverage on the basis of the UM damages under the statute.56 liability provisions policy, of a as Redland us do. Regarding argument, its first Redland is would have noting 1295 ex- correct identify In an all other authori- effort to pressly states that an “insured” must be a way might inform our ty that some thereby person policy,” “named in the re- decision, parties have invited our at- quiring begin language one to with the plethora implicating tention to a of cases liability policy to determine who policies either motor vehicle It eligible UM benefits.57 coverage generally. Some of those follow, however, that the logically does not interpret decisions contained liability portions of a should cabin portions within the UM of the relevant coverage ways others address the interpretation policies;59 our of UM Co., See, 22:1295(l)(a)(i). e.g., Carrier v. Reliance Ins. 57. See La.Rev.Stat. Collins, (La.2000); Magnon So.2d 37 Duncan, (La. 1999). at 58. See So.2d See, e.g., 56. See Fontana v. La. 'sAuto. Risk Pro Curtis v. Allstate Ins. Sheriff (5th 1980) (enforcing (La.App. gram, So.2d 1st Cir. F.2d 80-81 Cir. Lee, 1997) White, (citing provision); Bauer v. 532 So.2d 506 territorial limitation 1988)). (holding bicycle (La.App. at that a was not 1st Cir.

615 encompass “forklift” vis-a-vis the forklift in this enough defi- policies’ insurance Finally, cover- we remain mindful that terms when UM case.63 specific nitions public policy goal motivating Another line of the enact not at issue.60 age was poli- protection that insurance ment of the statute was the instructs UM jurisprudence victims,64 classes of particular requiring exclude of innocent tort cies coverage because such “liberally from UM the statute in eonstrue[ ]”65 vehicles we oth- public policy.61 Still coverage, exclusions violate “while the ex favor non-Louisiana courts are decisions of ceptions strictly ers to UM must be language foreign or hold, therefore, interpreting construed.”66 We all Ultimately, though, because statutes.62 an motor vehicle for forklift is uninsured distinguish- inapposite these cases are 1295. take com We able, persuasive do not find them we knowledge in the that such a construc fort helpful. even comports with the tion of “motor vehicle” Supreme expression Court’s Louisiana primary Having scoured Louisiana’s jurisprudence that “Louisiana statutes jurisprudence and its for sources of law strong public policy evince a favor of finally turn to the two-word guidance, we coverage.”67 A “motor vehicle” itself. forklift term (1) (2) mo propelled by its own a vehicle III. CONCLUSION tor, intuitively that a forklift is so it follows Likewise, agree with the district court’s hold- dictionary We a “motor vehicle.” ing may apply that Louisiana’s UM “motor vehicle” are broad statute definitions of vehicle,” which differs from the policy’s definition “land motor tor within a Thibodeaux, “automobile”); statute); 242 Aetna & Sur. Co. v. Jewett vehicle” or Cas. 48, Co., (Iowa (holding motorcycle that a So.2d at 113-14 N.W.2d 49-50 Lumber 209 policy’s 1973) of “automo- was within a definition policy language (interpreting unlike bile”). case); Packing Cal. statute at issue in this Co., Cal.App.2d Corp. Transp. Indemn. 275 v. See, e.g., v. World Ins. Williams Western 60. 150, (1969) 363, (holding Cal.Rptr. 80 153 529, 1996) Co., (La.App. 3d Cir. 685 So.2d 531 that a was covered “forklift” “highway (holding that a forklift was not part parties language, because the con- policy language); Dauthier v. vehicle” under vehicle"). a "land motor ceded a forklift was 556, Coupee Treating, Pointe Wood 560 Cir.1990) (holding (La.App. that a 558 1st Dictionary New 63. See Third Int’l Webster’s device” and not an forklift was "mechanical ("[A]n ve- Unabridged automotive 1476 defined in an "auto” as those terms were rails, esp: operated on one with hicle not policy). highways.”); Ameri- tires for use on rubber Co., 61. Mednick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Heritage Dictionary English Lan- can 1133, Cir.2010) (La.App. (4th 2000) ("A 31 So.3d 5th self-propelled guage ed. (holding truck, of an insurance conveyance, such as a car or wheeled legislature’s purpose policy cannot thwart the rails.”). that does not run on by attempting exclude UM by government); Po owned "motor vehicles” Co., 544, v. USAAIns. 950 So.2d 64. Duncan Co., sey v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., (La.2006); 404 So.2d at A.I.U Ins. Cir.1976) (same (La.App. 2d with 949. motorcycles). respect to Gray, So.2d at 845. Johnson, See, e.g., Gibboney 2006 WL v. (Ohio Dist.2006) (in App. at *6 8th Id. terpreting that fork Ohio UM law to conclude vehicles”); v. U.S. are “motor Olson Fi lifts Co., (S.D. Farm Fire & Cas. 67. Hotard State delity 549 N.W.2d & Guar. Cir.2002). (5th 1996) F.3d (relying on the definition of “mo- conclude, who are enti- legally sured thereunder accidents. We to out-of-state nonpunitive however, damages a “motor vehi- tled to recover that a forklift is of operators of Title from owners or uninsured part for the cle” vehicles Louisiana Revised or underinsured motor because 1295 of the Section sickness, disease, injury, bodily or identifies the uninsured Statutes therefrom; resulting including therefore death underinsured motor vehicle. We however, required judgment court’s dis- under reverse the district any applicable remand this is not when missing Boyetts’ action and Section insured named either re- proceedings this ease for further consis- limits, or opinion. jects coverage, selects lower tent with this economic-only coverage, in the selects AND REVERSED REMANDED. (l)(a)(ii) manner in Item of this provided In no event shall the Section. DAVIS, Judge, Circuit W. EUGENE an uninsured motorist limits of dissenting. liability be less than the minimum majori- respectfully I dissent from 32:900, required un- limits under R.S. holding quali- that a forklift ty’s decision economic-only coverage less is selected a “motor vehicle” under Louisiana’s fies as (em- in this as authorized Section.... (“UM”) statute, uninsured motorist La. added) phasis § I persuaded Rev.Stat. 22:1295. am La. It to me that the the definition of “motor vehicle” under seems clear 22:1295(l)(a)(i) necessarily legislature § all Rev.Stat. ex- intended instances “motor designed all vehicles which are not vehicle” in this statute to be defined as one cludes public highways required “designed public highways for use on and for use on and Louisiana, registered required registered and thus ex- to be this state.” subsection, I reach the same cludes forklifts. this conclusion Within statutory language repeat on the there is no need to the definition based Section and on related Louisiana statutes. each time the term “motor vehicle” is used. Moreover, reading this is consistent with 1295(l)(a)(i) provides, Section relevant mandating related Louisiana statutes lia- part: bility insurance. (l)(a)(i) liability No automobile insur- liability Safety covering arising ance out of the The Louisiana Motor Vehicle Re- maintenance, (“LMVSRL”), any ownership, sponsibility or use of Law La.Rev. seq., requires 32:851 et § motor vehicle shall be delivered or is- Stat. an owner delivery liability coverage sued for in this state with re- to obtain minimum for designed “[ejvery spect self-propelled regis- motor vehicle motor vehicle public highways state,” subject use on and tered in this to certain ex- registered Thus, ceptions.1 though to be in this state or as even provided broadly in this “motor Section unless LMVSRL defines vehicle” “every self-propelled provided supplemental therein include vehicle thereto, rollers, engines, in not than (except less the limits traction road tractors, cranes, bodily injury liability provided by power farm tractor shov- drillers) els, policy, provisions every under filed with and vehicle well by approved propelled power the commissioner of insur- which is electric ob- ance, oper- in- protection persons for the tained from overhead wires but 32:861(A)(1). § 1. La.Rev.Stat. rails,”2 upon

ated the compulsory liability § La.Rev.Stat. 32:851 et seq. Indeed, the requirement to ve- minimum liability limits for UM coverage hicles which must be under under are established Louisiana law. 32:851(12) La.Rev.Stat. by reference to 32:900, part provides “‘Registration’ includes a of the LMVSRL. registration certificate or certificates and short, I conclude from the statutory registration plates issued under the laws framework that the Louisiana legislature of this state pertaining to the registration intended UM coverage to mirror the man- of motor vehicles.” datory coverage required Louisiana’s registration vehicle laws are LMVSRL. To read the second instance of found Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised “motor vehicle” in 1295(l)(a)(i) Statutes. Most relevantly, La.Rev.Stat. broadly to include even vehicles not de- 47:501(A) § provides: “Every owner of a signed for use on public highways and not vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, or required to be registered in Louisiana other vehicle operated intended be would expand scope of UM coverage upon public highways in this state beyond far scope mandatory liability shall, before operating same, apply to coverage. Thus, I remain convinced that the secretary of the Department of Public phrase “motor vehicle” in Section Safety and Corrections for and obtain the 1295(l)(a)(i) must be interpreted in all in- registration pay thereof and the state reg- stances as being limited to one “designed istration or license tax imposed by this for use on public highways and required to Chapter, ...” (emphasis added). There be registered in this state.” Accordingly, are certain exemptions to registration even I would affirm the district court’s holding for vehicles which occasionally operate on that the forklift was not a “motor vehicle” the highway, but the essential point is that and no was available under if a vehicle is not intended to be operated policy. Redland’s upon public highways, it is subject general motor vehicle registration laws thus not subject to the require-

ment to obtain compulsory liability insur-

ance. Taking the statutory framework as a WILLIAMS, Clinton Plaintiff- whole, it is clear to me that a vehicle which Appellant, is not designed for highway use and not required to subject is not the compulsory liability require- insurance LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

ment under La.Rev.Stat. 32:861. This is CO., Defendant-Appellee. precisely the exemption to UM coverage No. 11-60818. set out in Section (“any motor vehicle designed for use on public high- United States Court Appeals, ways required to be registered in this Fifth Circuit. state”). UM coverage is thus intended to Jan. fill gap the event another driver fails to obtain mandatory liability by the LMVSRL, 32:851(4).

Case Details

Case Name: Clyde Boyett v. Redland Insurance Co.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 27, 2014

Citation: 741 F.3d 604

Docket Number: 12-31273

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.