Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Breard v. Haynes
Citation: 394 So. 2d 1282Docket: 13936
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 25, 1981; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In the case of George V. Breard et al. v. Aubrey J. Haynes et al., the Court of Appeal of Louisiana addressed an appeal by plaintiff George V. Breard regarding a judgment concerning his uninsured motorist insurance claims. Breard was awarded $530.00 against Allstate Insurance Company for injuries from a minor traffic accident involving a vehicle owned by George Cook, in which Breard was a guest passenger. However, he sought further recovery for injuries sustained in a subsequent accident caused by an uninsured driver, Ewing, after Breard had moved away from the Cook vehicle. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, which had awarded Breard $10,000 from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company for injuries from both accidents but denied additional recovery from Allstate for the second accident. The court reasoned that Breard was not occupying the Cook vehicle at the time of the second incident, as he had walked approximately seventy feet away to speak with an off-duty police officer directing traffic. The court emphasized that Breard did not meet the criteria for coverage under Allstate's uninsured motorist policy since he was neither the named insured nor a relative of the named insured. The ruling underscored the definition of "occupying" in relation to insurance coverage, ultimately concluding that Breard's actions did not qualify him for additional compensation under the policy. The court addressed whether the plaintiff was "occupying" the Cook vehicle at the time of the second accident, based on the definition from the Allstate policy, which includes being in, upon, entering, or exiting the vehicle. For Allstate to provide coverage, the court determined that the plaintiff must have been occupying the Cook vehicle. It referenced the case Smith v. Travelers Insurance, which established that physical contact with the vehicle is not always necessary for coverage, but there must be a physical relationship between the person and the vehicle. In this instance, there was no physical contact between the plaintiff and the Cook vehicle, which was approximately seventy feet away at the time of the accident, with a fifteen-minute gap between the first and second accidents. The court concluded that the plaintiff had sufficient time to distance himself from the Cook vehicle, thereby terminating coverage under Allstate’s policy. The court found no constitutional issue with the insurer's definition of "occupying" and rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding ambiguity and public policy, asserting that insurers can require a physical relationship for coverage. Additionally, the court declined to view the incidents as a single continuing accident or to extend coverage from the first accident to the second, noting that the plaintiff lost his status as an insured after the second accident. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating there was no merit to claims for coextensive coverage under uninsured motorist provisions compared to liability provisions. The judgment was upheld at the appellant's costs.