Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 6, 1997; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Belvadine M. Costello appeals a summary judgment favoring National Security Fire & Casualty Company in a personal injury case stemming from a June 25, 1994 automobile accident in Lafayette, Louisiana, where she was a passenger in a vehicle rear-ended by Brandi Babineaux. Costello, along with her daughter Connie Dronet and their husbands, initially sued Babineaux and her insurer, Safeway Insurance Company, which paid out its policy limits. Subsequently, Costello included National Security, the underinsured motorist (UM) carrier, in the lawsuit after claiming the rejection of UM coverage by Connie’s husband, Willie J. Dronet, was invalid due to alleged forgery of his signature by Connie and flaws in the rejection form itself.
National Security moved for summary judgment, asserting that Dronet's rejection of UM coverage was valid. The trial court granted National Security's motion and denied Costello's, leading to her appeal. The appellate court reviews summary judgments de novo, confirming that they are appropriate only when evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact. A material fact is one that could affect the outcome of the case. The court emphasized that disputes over insurance policy coverage can be resolved via summary judgment if there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy that would allow for coverage based on undisputed facts.
The purpose of Louisiana's UM statute is to enable full recovery for insured victims of accidents involving uninsured or underinsured motorists, and the statute mandates that any waivers of UM coverage be clear and unmistakable. Consequently, exceptions to coverage should be narrowly interpreted, reinforcing the presumption in favor of coverage.
The insurer must demonstrate that the insured rejected Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage in writing, as mandated by the court in Roger and specified in La.R.S. 22:1406 D(1)(a)(i). This coverage is not applicable if the insured, through a written rejection, selects lower limits. Insurers are obligated to ensure the insured can make an informed rejection of UM coverage, offering three options: UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits, lower UM coverage, or no UM coverage. If only minimum bodily injury limits are chosen, the insurer’s duty is limited to informing the insured about the availability of UM coverage or the absence of it. A valid rejection of UM coverage must be clear, unambiguous, in writing, and signed by the insured or their representative. The burden of proof lies with the insurer to show that a valid waiver was made.
Costello argues that no discussion about lower UM coverage occurred and claims the rejection form is invalid for failing to provide a meaningful selection among the three options. The specific policy in question offers 10/20 liability limits, which is the minimum required by Louisiana law. The rejection form states that UM coverage is available unless rejected or lower limits are selected, and it has been signed by the applicant. The Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Daigle validates this rejection form, affirming that such execution constitutes a valid rejection of UM coverage under Louisiana law. In Daigle, similar circumstances were present, and the court determined that the insured had only two options: the mandated UM coverage or none, thereby confirming that National Security was required to inform the insured of these choices.
National Security's form effectively allowed for a valid rejection of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage, as it informed Dronet that Louisiana law mandates UM coverage unless rejected or lower limits are selected. Dronet rejected the UM coverage by signing the form, which constituted a clear and unmistakable affirmative act of rejection, fulfilling statutory requirements.
A dispute arose regarding the authenticity of Dronet's signature on the UM rejection form. Willie Dronet claimed he did not sign it, while his insurance agent affirmed that he had signed the application after rejecting UM coverage. Connie Dronet admitted to signing her husband's name but stated it was done under the agent's direction without discussing UM coverage. The trial court concluded that the Dronets' affidavits did not create a genuine issue of material fact and ruled that even if Connie Dronet signed on her husband's behalf, the rejection remained valid since she was a named insured capable of rejecting UM coverage.
Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to National Security was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Costs of the appeal were assigned to the plaintiff-appellant, Belvadine Costello.
