Kanter v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
Docket: No. 90-310
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; August 7, 1991; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In this case, the plaintiff, Shel Kanter, sought to recover collision damages from his automobile insurance carrier, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, following a one-car accident involving his daughter. The central issue on appeal was the validity of a named-driver exclusion endorsement in the insurance policy. This endorsement was initially attached to the policy declaration sheet when executed in September 1986, but subsequent renewals referenced the endorsement only by its contract number, FB200, without including a copy.
The trial court ruled that the references in the renewal declarations were inadequate to inform the insured that the endorsement remained in effect, leading to the conclusion that it was not applicable during the accident on October 9, 1988. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the endorsement need not be physically attached to the policy for it to remain valid. It emphasized that the insured must possess complete evidence of the insurance contract, and as long as the endorsement did not conflict with statutory laws or public policy, it could be valid even if not physically attached.
The court noted that an insurer can amend coverage through endorsements, provided they align with statutory requirements. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, upholding the trial court's award of damages.
The trial judge erred by not recognizing the endorsement that excluded Laura Kanter as an insured driver, which was properly attached to the renewal and amended declaration sheets, per LSA-R.S. 22:628. The plaintiff possessed the complete evidence of the insurance contract, as the declaration sheets referenced the endorsement and it modified the policy. The practice of incorporating documents by specific reference is acceptable in the insurance industry. Although the plaintiff was aware the endorsement was effective upon signing, he mistakenly believed it was no longer valid upon policy renewal, despite having no substantial basis for this belief and failing to read the renewal documents. A policy can be renewed without reissuing a new endorsement, and since the endorsement was part of the policy which had not lapsed, it remained effective. The endorsement's language was clear and unambiguous regarding its duration. Consequently, the named-driver exclusion endorsement must be enforced, and Farm Bureau is not liable for damages to the plaintiff’s van when driven by the excluded driver. The trial court's judgment is reversed, with costs assessed to the plaintiff-appellee, Shel Kanter.
