* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

(continued...) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 97-30583

Summary Calendar

______________

BRENDA BUTTS and RICHARD BUTTS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

ÆTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

LOUISIANA UNITED BUSINESS SELF INSURERS FUND,

Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ÆTNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,

Intervenor Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-1777)

_________________________

January 22, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: ** (...continued)

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 Brenda Butts sued Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Aetna”),

demanding coverage under her employer's automobile insurance

policy. The district court found that the employer, Kilpatrick

Life Insurance Company (“Kilpatrick”), had waived uninsured

motorist (“UM”) coverage and granted su mmary judgment for Aetna.

We affirm.

I.

Butts was driving her car in th e course and scope of her

employment with Kilpatrick when she was struck broadside by a car

driven by James Chatman. Chatman's liability insurance provided a

policy limit of $25,000 SS an amount Butts says was insufficient to

compensate her for the serious injuries she suffered in the

accident. Butts then sought compensation under Kilpatrick's

automobile insurance policy, issued by Aetna.

Aetna denied coverage, arguing that Kilpatrick had waived UM

coverage. Butts sued Aetna, but the court agreed that Kilpatrick

had waived UM coverage and granted Aetna summary judgment. The

court found that a valid waiver had been executed b y Max Corley,

who, although not an employee of Kilpatrick, had been granted

implied actual authority to waive UM coverage on Kilpatrick's

behalf.

We review grants of summary judgment de novo

. K night v. U.S.3

Fidelity & G uar. Ins. Co. , 65 F.3d 34, 36 (5th Cir. 1995). All

facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant

and all reasonable inferences drawn in his favor. T exas v.

Thompson

, 70 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 1995). The parties agree that

Louisiana law governs this diversity case.

II.

The central issue is whether there is a disputed material fact

concerning Corley's authority to waive UM coverage on be half of

Kilpatrick. We conclude that no material facts regarding this

issue are in dispute and that the district court properly granted

summary judgment.

A.

In Louisiana, UM coverage is included in every liability

policy unless it is reje cted “clearly, unambiguously, and

unmistakably.” H enson v. Safeco Ins. Cos. , 585 So. 2d 534, 538

(La. 1991). Both sides agree that the waiver language was plain

and unambiguous and that Corley knowingly signed the waiver. The

disputed question is whether Corley e njoyed the authority to

execute a waiver that is binding on Kilpatrick.

Under Louisiana law, one may bind a corporation if he has

implied actual authority to do so. Louisiana courts have

recognized that an ag ency relationship may be created by4

implication when

from the nature of the principal's business and the

position of the agent within that business, the agent is

deemed to have permission from the principal to undertake

certain acts which are reasonably related to the agent's

position and wh ich are reasonable and necessary concomitants of the agent's express authorization. Implied

authority connotes permission from the principal for the

agent to act, though that permission is not expressly set

forth orally or in writing. Generally, one should look

from the viewpoint of the principal and the agent to

determine whether the agent has implied authority.

AAA Tire & Export, Inc. v. Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc.

, 385 So. 2d

426, 429 (La. App. 1s t Cir. 1980). Written documents, such as a

contract or corporate minutes, are not necessary to prove agency,

nor is it necessary that the board of directors expressly authorize

the agent to act fo r the corporation. Agency may be established

through proof of a course o f business or through proof that the

board of directors knew of, or acquiesced in, the agent's authority

and actions. Karam v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 813 F.2d 751, 754 (5th

Cir. 1987) (quoting 2 W. F LETC HER

, C YCLOPEDIA OF THE L AW OF P RIVATE

C ORPORATIONS § 444, at 346 (rev. perm. ed. 1982)).

B.

Corley is not Kilpatrick's employee. He is, however, the vice

president of the Rose-Neath Funeral Home (“Rose-Neath”), a company

that is commonly managed with Kilpatrick. Virginia Shehee is the

link between the two businesses, serving as chief executive officer

and president of both.1 Butts rebuts Aetna's claim that no disputed material facts exist by

pointing to the testimony of Crystal Baer, an Aetna employee. Baer testified

that Shehee “was not sitting” at the meeting where Shehee says she granted Corley

express authority to waive coverage. Butts argues that the district court

improperly accepted Aetna's facts when it erroneously concluded that Butts failed

(continued...)

5 Aetna argues that Corley was an authorized agent of Kilpatrick

because Shehee orally instructed Corley to waive UM coverage on

behalf of K ilpatrick and because Corley had routinely signed

insurance policies for Kilpatrick. Shehee testified that Corley

had “handled the insurance” for both Kilpatrick and Rose-Neath for

at least a dozen years. In his deposition, Corley corroborated

Shehee's unders tanding. Roughly a year after Corley signed the

waiver, the Kilpatrick shareholders passed a resolution providing

that “all acts of Officers and Directors of Kilpatrick Life

Insurance Company, or any other designated individual, in handling

the affairs, investments, and contributions of said Corporation

since the last Annual Meeting of Shareholders are hereby ratified

and approved.”

It is undisputed that Corley regularl y signed insurance

policies on behalf of Kilpatrick with Shehee's permission. It is

undisputed that both Shehee and Corley believed that he had the

authority to continue this longstanding practice when he signed the

waiver at issue here. That Corley executed a binding waiver is

further supported by the shareholders' subsequent ratification of

his actions. Despite Butts's argument that a dispute exists

regarding Shehee's express grant of authority, 1 we find nothing in1 (...continued)

timely to file her separate statement of dis p uted facts. Because we conclude

that even given Baer's tes timony SS and other facts Butts says were wrongly

excluded SS there exists n o disputed material fact concerning Corley's i mplied

authority, we see no need to revisit the question of timeliness.

6 the record to contradict Aetna's claim that Corley enjoyed implied

actual authority to waive UM coverage on Kilpatrick's behalf.

Accordingly, the summary judgment is AFFIRMED.