Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 13, 1987; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The appeal centers on the "stacking" of uninsured motorist (U/M) coverages. Louis Wyatt, Jr. was injured in a collision on December 5, 1981, while driving his truck, settling claims against the at-fault driver and their insurer for $50,000 and with another insurer for $5,000 in U/M coverage. Wyatt sought additional U/M benefits from policies held by his father, Louis Wyatt, Sr., with defendants Foremost Insurance Company, United States Fidelity, Guaranty Company, and American Universal Insurance Company. The defendants argued for summary judgment, citing La.R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(c), which prohibits stacking of U/M coverages. The trial court dismissed Wyatt's claims, affirming the anti-stacking rule that limits recovery to the primary U/M coverage of the vehicle occupied at the time of the accident. Wyatt contended that settling with one insurer did not preclude recovery from others, referencing the case Branch v. O’Brien, which allowed selection from multiple policies. However, the precedent set in Breaux v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. reinforced that only U/M coverage under the policy listing the involved vehicle is applicable. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, leading to the dismissal of Wyatt's appeal.
The court in Breaux rejected the reasoning in Branch regarding uninsured motorist (UM) coverage, emphasizing that when there are multiple liability policies but only one that lists the vehicle involved in the accident, that policy's UM coverage is exclusive. The 1977 amendment to the Act limits UM coverage to the policy on the vehicle owned by the injured party, making it the sole source for UM coverage and establishing the groundwork for the prohibition against "stacking" coverage limits. In the case of plaintiff Danny Breaux, his policy on the Suzuki motorcycle became the exclusive UM coverage applicable after issuance. Consequently, the court denied access to higher UM limits available under another policy for a different vehicle, the Pontiac.
The court agreed with the Breaux decision and referenced additional cases to support its conclusion. It distinguished the present case from Taylor v. Tanner, where plaintiffs were allowed to recover from the policy with the highest limits due to favorable circumstances surrounding the victim's injuries while a passenger in a non-owned vehicle. In contrast, the current plaintiff occupied a vehicle he owned, reinforcing the exclusivity of his UM coverage. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants was upheld, with costs assessed against the plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed.
