Galata v. TurnerGalata v. Turner
Plaintiff, Jeannine Galata (“Galata”), appeals from the trial court’s granting summary judgment in favor of her uninsured motorist coverage carrier, Colonial Insurancе Company of California (“Colonial”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Jeannine Galata, a resident of Pearling-ton, Mississippi, was injured as a result of an automobile accident which occurred on October 18, 1988 in Hancock County, Mississippi. She filed suit in Civil District Court, New Orleans, naming as defendants Donald Turner, Jr. (“Turner”), the owner аnd operator of the vehicle which struck her vehicle and a resident of Orleans Parish; Old Hickory Casualty Insurance Company (Automotive Casualty Insurance Company), Turner’s insurer; and Colonial.
Colonial moved for a declaratory judgment requesting the trial court confirm that Mississippi law governs the interpretation of its insurance contract with Galata. A certified copy of the declaration sheet and policy attached to the motion indicates that the insuranсe policy was written in Waveland, Mississippi, and insured Vincent 0. Galata, husband of plaintiff and resident of Pearlington, Mississippi. By consent judgment dated December 6, 1990, the triаl court granted the motion declaring that, Mississippi law would apply as concerning the contract of insurance issued by Colonial to Jeannine Galata’s husband and, further, that Mississippi law would apply as concerning uninsured motorist claims and/or coverage.
Colonial subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment contеnding that Galata is not entitled to recover benefits under the uninsured or underinsured motorist provisions of the policy. Colonial argued that due to the amounts of insurance involved, Mississippi law does not consider Turner’s vehicle uninsured as to Galata. In its attached statement of uncontested material facts, Coloniаl stated that, at the time of the accident, 1) it had in full force and effect a policy of insurance issued to Vincent 0. Galata with uninsured motorist coveragе in the amount of $10,000 per person or $20,000 per occurrence and liability coverage in the amount of $10,000 per person or $20,000 per occurrencе; and 2) Automotive Casualty had in full force and effect a policy of liability insurance insuring Donald Turner with limits in the amount of $10,000 per person or $20,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $10,000 per person or $20,000 per occurrence for uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, as
In her opposition to the motion Galata argued that summary judgment should be denied because the rеcord contained no evidence of payment to Galata by Turner’s insurer. After due proceedings, the trial court granted Colonial’s motion for summary judgment. Galata filed this appeal.
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo, under the same criteria that governs the district court’s consideration of the appropriateness of summary judgment. Schroeder v. Board of Sup’rs of Louisiana State University,
On appeal, Galata contends that the trial court erred in finding that, under Mississippi law, Turner’s vehicle is not an uninsured vehicle. Galata estimates her damages as totalling $25,000 to $30,000. She argues that she is entitled to aggregate her uninsured motorist coverage in the аmount of $10,000 to Turner’s injury liability coverage limits of $10,000 so that her insurance coverage will total $20,000. Galata contends that if she is precluded from aggregating the insurance coverage, a substantial portion of her damages will not be covered by insurance. Galata also contends that the summary judgment is improper because Turner’s insurance company has not yet paid her claim.
In response, Colonial argues that LSA-C.C. art. 15 provides that, “the form and effect of public and private instruments are governed by the laws and usages of the places where they are cast and executed.” Thus, it asserts that the trial court’s consent judgment accorded with Louisiana law when it resolved that Mississippi law governs both the interpretation of the Galata-Colonial insurance policy and thе issue of uninsured motorist coverage. Colonial also asserts the trial court accurately concluded Galata is not legally entitled to recover under the policy because
Under Mississippi law, for Galata to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy of insurance, the tort-feasor’s automobile “must be ‘an uninsured motor vehicle’ as dеfined by the Mississippi Uninsured Motorist Act.” Cossitt v. Federated Guar. Mut. Ins. Co.,
[A]n insured motor vehicle, when the liability insurer of such vehicle has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist coverage ...
(emphasis by Mississippi Supreme Court)
Thus, when detеrmining whether the tortfeasor is uninsured under
Applying these precepts to the parties’ policies, we find that as a function of Mississippi law, Turner’s vehicle is not an “uninsurеd motor vehicle” as to Galata because her uninsured motorist coverage and Turner’s liability limits are equal. See St. Paul Property & Liability Co. v. Nance, supra. While we sympathize with Galata’s situation, the amount of her damages is irrelevant when determining her eligibility for uninsured motorist benefits. Cossitt v. Federated Guar. Mut. Ins. Co., supra. Moreover, as Mississippi law defines an uninsured vehicle in terms of policy limits, as distinguished from thе proceeds actually received by a particular claimant, Mississippi law does not support Galata’s contention that summary judgment was inapрropriately granted merely because Automotive Casualty has not yet paid her claim. Id. The trial court, therefore, correctly found no genuine issue оf material fact exists for trial and Colonial is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs аre taxed to plaintiff/appellant.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Our ruling renders plaintiffs argument on the issue of offset moot.
. Mississippi’s present statutory scheme allows a motorist to prоtect himself with uninsured motorist coverage "to the. extent of whatever limits [he] deems appropriate." Thiac v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra.,