Randy MARTIN, et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Lawrence N. Curtis, Lafayette, for Randy and Sheila Martin.
Michael J. Breaux, for Dona Bordelon, et al.
Rоbert Michael Kallam, Lafayette, for Continental Casualty Company.
Before DECUIR, AMY and GREMILLION, JJ.
DECUIR, Judge.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Randy and Sheila Martin, who arе insured by defendant, CNA Insurance Company, from the trial court's grant of CNA's motion for summary judgment. The Martins sued CNA to recover on their uninsured/underinsured mоtorist (UM) coverage. The trial court concluded that the Martins had validly selected UM coverage in the amount of $20,000.00 rather than the equivalent of their bodily injury liability limit ($100,000.00). The trial court then dismissed their claim against CNA with prejudice. CNA had already paid $20,000.00 on the claim.
*678 The Martins appeal from that final judgment. We affirm.
ISSUE
The sole issuе for review in this case is whether the district court erred in finding that the UM selection form supplied by CNA was sufficient to effect a "meaningful, clear and unambiguous" selection of lower UM limits.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial judge's consideration of whether a summary judgment is appropriate. Thus, we give no deference to the trial court's decision. Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University,
As set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A), a plaintiff or a defendаnt in the principal or any incidental action, with or without supporting affidavits, may move for summary judgment in his favor for all or part of the relief for which has been prayed. Further, the mover is entitled to judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissiоns on file, together with supporting affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a mattеr of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B); Durrosseau v. Century 21 Flavin Realty, Inc.,
Because the burden of establishing that no material factual issue exists is on the mover, inferences to be drаwn from the underlying facts contained in the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Schroeder,
La.R.S. 22:1406 provides that uninsured motorist coverage exists in amounts not less than the limits of bodily injury liаbility unless an insured rejects the coverage in writing or selects lower limits. The statute is to be liberally construed and, therefore, statutory еxceptions to the UM coverage requirements are interpreted strictly. Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
The Martins claim that the rejection form is ineffective because it does not provide the insured with the three options required by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Tugwell. The Tugwell court noted that:
[A] valid rejection or selеction of lower limits must be in writing and signed by the named insured or his legal representative. (Citations omitted). Further, the insurer must place the insured in a рosition to make an informed rejection of UM coverage. In other words, the form used by the insurance company must give the aрplicant the opportunity to make a "meaningful selection" from his options provided by the statute: (1) UM coverage equal tо bodily injury limits in the policy, (2) UM coverage lower than bodily injury limits in the policy, or (3) no UM coverage.
Id. at 197.
Because the statute automatiсally provides for UM coverage equal to the bodily injury liability limits, absent a rejection of UM coverage or selection of lоwer limits in writing, the customer possesses UM coverage as a matter of law. In other words, the policyholder does not have to dо an affirmative act. The policyholder need not indicate *679 in any manner his/her choice for UM coverage equal to the bodily injury liability limits of the policy. If the Martins had done nothing on the form, UM coverage would have been automatically provided in an аmount equal to the bodily injury liability coverage. Thus, although Tugwell and the statute provide for three options, only two of those options, the rejection of UM coverage and the selection of UM coverage with limits lower than the policy's bodily injury liability limits, require an affirmative act on the part of the policyholder. Holbrook v. Holliday,
The Martins suggest that our decision in Holbrook,
The Martins were given the opportunity to select bodily injury liability limits of $100,000 оr to select a limit of their choice. They clearly initialed that they elected to choose a limit themselves, and they then clearly initialed their choice of $20,000.
We are aware of a trend in the courts of this state which would decline to hold ordinary citizеns accountable for reading and understanding the forms which they sign and for the economic choices they make unless said documents are drafted in the most simplistic terms. Our respect for the citizenry of this state precludes us from following that unpleasantly paternаlistic trend. Accordingly, we find that CNA's UM Coverage Selection or Rejection form fully complies with the statutory and jurisprudential requirements that an insured be allowed to make a "meaningful, clear and unambiguous" decision as to the rejection of UM coverage or thе selection of different limits than those provided by law.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are taxed to plaintiffs-appellants.
AFFIRMED.