# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #030

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 27th day of June, 2018 , are as follows:

PER CURIAM :

2017 -C-2 074 FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BRANDON FORVENDEL v. STATE COMPANY (Parish of Jefferson)

In this case, we are called upon to decide whether an insurer waived its defenses to plaintiff’s current claim by paying on an earlier claim to him in error. For the reasons that follow, we find that the insurer did not waive its rights. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the courts below.

REVERSED.0 6 / 2 7 / 1 8

SUPREME COURT OF LOUI SI ANA

No . 2 01 7 -C-2 07 4

BRANDON FORVENDEL

VERSUS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBI LE I NSURANCE COMPANY

ON W R I T OF CERTI ORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FI FTH CI RCUI T, PARI SH OF J EFFERSON

PER CURI AM

In t h i s cas e, we are cal l ed u p o n t o d eci d e wh et h er an i n s u rer wai v ed i t s

d efen s es t o p l ai n t i ff’ s cu rren t cl ai m b y p ay i n g o n an earl i er cl ai m t o h i m i n erro r. Fo r

t h e reas o ns t h at fo l l ow, we fi n d t h at t h e i n su rer d id n o t wai v e i t s ri g h t s

. Acco rd i n g l y ,

we rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t s o f t h e co u rt s b el o w.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY

Pl ai n t i ff, Bran d o n Fo rv en d el
, was in ju red i n a m

ul t i -v eh i cl e acci den t i n 2 0 1 3.

At th e t i m e o f t h e acci d en t , p l ai n t i ff was d ri v i n g a Ch ev ro l et Eq u i n o x o wn ed b y h i m

an d in s u red u n d er a p o l i cy is s u ed b y St at e Farm M u t u al Au t o m o b il e In s u ran ce

Co m p an y (“ St at e Farm ”), wh i ch i n c l u d ed u n i n su red m o t o ri s t (“ UM ”) co v erag e.

Pl ai n t i ff reco v ered t he l i m i t s o f h i s UM co v erag e u n d er h i s St at e Farm p o l icy

.

At t h e ti m e o f t he 2 0 1 3 acci d en t , p l ai n t i ff l i v ed i n t h e h o u seh o l d o f hi s m o t h er,

Deb orah Fo rv en d el
, w h o was al s o i n s u red b y St at e Farm

. Pl ai n t i ff al s o s o u g h t to

reco v er un d er h i s m o th er’ s St at e Farm UM p o li cy , wh i ch carri ed s i g n i fi can t l y h i g h erp o l i cy li m i t s

. St at e Farm refu s ed t o al l o w h i m t o reco v er u n d er hi s m o t h er's p o l i cy ,

ci t i n g t h e an t i-s t ack i n g p ro v i si o n s o f La. R.S. 2 2 : 1 29 5 (1 )(c). 1

As a res u l t , p l ai n t i ff fi l ed t h e i n s t a n t s u i t ag ai n s t St at e Farm

. In h i s p et i t i o n,

p l ai n t i ff al l eg ed t hat th e fact s o f t h e i n s t an t cas e were s t ri ki n g l y s i m i l ar to an earl i er

2 0 0 7 acci d en t i n wh i ch St at e Farm al l o wed h i m

t o reco v er UM b en efi t s u nd er b o th

h i s o wn UM p o l i cy an d h i s m o t h er’ s UM p o l i cy

.

At t ri al
, pl ai n t iff o ffered ev i d en ce reg ard i n g t h e 2 0 0 7 acci d en t. In p art i cu l ar,

h e rel ied o n a J u n e 9
, 2 00 8 l et t er fro m a St at e Farm

m an ag er t o p lai n ti ff’ s at t o rn ey

.

Th i s l et t er referen ced to t h e 2 0 0 7 acci den t an d pl ai nt i ff’s c l ai m u n d er hi s m o t h er’ s

p o l i cy , st at i n g , “ y o u r cl i en t d o es q u al i fy as an i n s u red fo r Un i n s u r e d M o t o ri s t

co v erag e.” Th ereaft er, St at e Farm al lo wed p l ai nt iff t o reco v er u n d er b o th p o l i ci es fo r

t h e 2 0 0 7 acci d en t

. Ms

. Fo rv en d el t es t i fi ed St at e Farm d id no t no t i fy h er o f an y erro r

i n p erm i t t i n g p l ai n t iff’ s reco very u n d er h er p ol i cy i n 2 0 0 7

.

1 L a . R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) provides:

(c) I f the insured has any limits of uninsu re d motorist coverag e in a policy of a

utomobile liability insurance, in a ccordance with the terms of Subparag raph (1)(a) of this Section, then such l i m i t s o f liability shall not b e incr e a sed because of multiple motor vehicles covered under such policy of insurance, and such limits of uninsured motorist
coverag e shall not be increased when the insured has insu r a nce available to him under m ore than o n e uninsured motorist coverag e provision or p olicy ; however, with r e s p e ct to o ther insurance avail a b le, the policy of insurance or endorsement shall provide the following w i t h r espect to bodily injury to an injured party while

o c c upy ing a

n automobile not owned by said injured party , reside n t spouse, or r e sident relative, and the fol l o wing priorities of r e covery under uninsured motorist coverag e shall apply :

(i) The uninsured motorist covera g e on the vehicle in w hich the injured party

was an occupant is primary

. (ii) Should that primary unin s u r ed motorist coverag e be ex hausted due to the ex tent of damag es, then the injured occupant may r ecover

as ex cess f

rom o ther uninsured motorist coverag e available to him. I n

no instance shall more than one c overag e from more than o ne uninsured motorist policy be available as ex cess over and above the primary coverag e available to the injured occupant.

2St at e Farm ’ s rep res en t at i v e, Aaro n An g el
, t es t i fi ed t h at t h e 2 0 0 7 p ay m en t was

m ad e i n erro r. Pau l Ro b i ch au x , a St at e Farm A u t o Team M an ag er i n 2 0 0 8, t es t i fi ed

t h e 2 00 7 cl ai m was referred t o h i m t o co n s i d e r w h e th er p l ai n t i ff, as a res i d en t

r el at i v e, co u l d s el ect UM co v erag e u n der M s

. Fo rv en d el ’ s p o l i cy , b u t h e d i d n o t

co n si d er t h e an t i -s t ack i ng s t a t u t e

. M r. Ro b i ch au x s t at ed h e was u n aware p l ai n t i ff

co l l ect ed UM b en efi t s u n d er h i s o wn p o li cy at t he t i m e, an d h e d i d n o t m a k e a ny

d et erm i n at i o n reg ard i n g s t ack i n g

.

At t h e co n cl u si o n o f t ri al
, t h e d i st ri ct co u rt en t ered ju dg m en t fo r p l ai n ti ff i n t h e

am ou n t of $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 i n d am ag es , p l u s i nt eres t an d co s ts

. In it s reas o n s fo r ju d g m en t ,

t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ex p l ai ned “ St at e Farm p rev io us l y in t erp ret ed t h e ag reem en t b et ween

t h e part i es t o co v er p l ai n t i ff un d er hi s m o t h er's UM p ol i cy , an d t h is fact can b e

co n si d ered b y t h e Co urt i n i nt erp ret i n g t h e ag reem en t b et ween t h e p art i es i n effect at

t h e t i m e o f t h e 2 0 1 3 acci d en t .”

St at e Farm ap peal ed

. In a s p l i t d ec i s i o n , t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal
, Fi ft h Ci rcu i t ,

affi rm ed
, co n cl u d i n g t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t e r r i n fi n d i n g St at e Farm wai v ed an y

d efen s e to t h e 2 0 1 3 cl ai m b y p ay i n g t h e 2 0 0 7 cl ai m i n erro r. F o r ven d el v. S t a t e Fa r m

Mu t

. Au t o

. In s

. Co

. , 1 7 -7 7 (La. Ap p

. 5 Ci r. 1 1 / 1 5 /1 7), 2 3 0 So .3 d 68 7

. T he d is s en t i n g

ju d g e r e ject ed t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s reas on i n g , fi n di n g i t wo u l d b e in co n t rav en ti on o f t h e

an t i -s t ack i n g s t a t u t e t o fi n d St at e Farm ex t en d ed co v erag e t o p l ai n t i ff bey o n d h i s

p o l i cy l i m i t s

.

U pon S ta te F a r

m ’ s a pplic a t i o n , we gran t ed cert i o rari t o co n s i der t h e c or r e c tne ss

o f t h is d eci s i o n

. Fo r ven d el v. S t a t e Fa r m Mu t

. Au to

. In s

. Co

. , 1 7-2 0 7 4 (La. 3 / 9 / 1 8 ),

_ _ _ So .3 d

_

__ .

DI SCUSSI ON

3Th e an t i -s t ack in g s t at u t e, La. R.S. 2 2 : 1 2 9 5 p ro v i d es , i n p ert i n en t p art :

(c) If t he i ns u r e d h as an y l i m i t s of u n i n s ured m o t o ri s t

c o v erag e i n a p ol i cy o f au to m o b i l e l iab i li t y i n s u ran ce, i n

acco rd an ce wi t h t h e t erm s o f Su b parag rap h (1 )(a) o f t h i s Sect io n, t h en s u ch l i m i t s o f l i ab i l i t y s h al l n o t b e in creas ed b ecau s e o f m

u l t i pl e m o t o r v eh i c l es co v ered u n der s u ch
p ol icy o f i n s uran ce, an d s uch l i mi t s of uni ns ured

m o to ri s t co v era g e s ha l l n o t be i ncrea s ed w hen the i ns ured ha s ins uran c e a v a i l abl e to hi m under m o re tha n

o ne uni ns ured m oto ri s t co v era ge pro v is i o n o r po l i cy

. .

. . [em p h as i s ad ded ]

.

Pl ai n t i ff d o es no t d i s p u t e t h at th e p ro v is i o n s o f t h i s s tat u t e ap p l y u n d er t h e

i n s t an t fact s

. Ho wev er, h e arg ues St at e Farm wai v ed i t s ri gh t t o as s ert t h i s d efen s e

b as ed o n i t s act i o ns i n co n n ect i o n wi t h p l ai nt i ff’ s earl i er 2 0 0 7 acci d en t

.

In fi n d i ng a wai v er o ccu rred
, t h e co u rt o f ap p eal rel ied on o u r o p i n i o n in

S t ep t o r e v. Ma s co Co n s t r

. Co

. , 6 4 3 So .2 d 1 2 1 3 (La. 1 99 4 ). In S t ep t or e , we h el d an

i n s u rer w ai v ed i t s ri g h t t o as s ert a co v erag e d efen s e b y as s u m i n g an d co nt i n u i n g t h e

d efen s e o f i ts i n su red i n t he face o f fact s in d i cat i n g t h at i t h ad a ri g h t t o d en y

co v erag e fo r t he acci d en t

. W e ex p l ai n ed t h e l aw as fo l l o ws :

W ai v er i s g en eral l y u n d ers t o o d t o b e t h e i nt en t i o nal rel i n q u i s h m en t o f a k n o wn ri g h t , p o wer, o r p ri v i leg e. Ta t e

v. Ch a r l es A g u i l l a r d In s

. & Re a l E s t a t e, In c ., 5 0 8 So .2 d 1 37 1 (La.1 9 8 7 ); Led

o ux v. Ol d Rep u b l i c Li

f e In s. Co

. , 2 3 3 So .2 d 7 3 1 (La.Ap p

. 3 d Ci r.), cer t d en i ed 2 5 6 La. 3 7 2, 2 3 6 So .2 d 5 0 1 (1 9 7 0 ) ; Pea vey Co

. v. M / V ANPA
, 97 1 F.2 d 1 16 8 (5 t h Ci r.1 99 2 ); Co m m en t , W ai ver a n d Es t o p p el i n Lo u i s i an a In s u ran ce Law, 2 2 La.L.Rev

. 2 0 2 (1 9 6 1 ); 16 B Ap p lem an , In su ran ce Law an d Pract i ce, § 9 0 8 1 (1 9 8 1 ); Co u ch o n In s u ran ce 2 d
, § 3 5: 2 4 9 (Rev

. ed

. 1 9 8 5 ). W ai v er

o ccu rs wh en t h ere i s an ex i s t i n g ri gh t , a k n owl ed ge o f i t s

ex i st en ce an d an act u al in t en t i o n t o rel in q u i s h i t o r co n d uct

s o i n co n s is t en t w i t h t h e i n t en t t o en fo rce t h e ri gh t as t o i n d uce a reas o n ab l e bel i ef t h at i t h as b een rel i n qu i s h ed

. T a te , supra ; Pea vey , s u

p r a ; Led o u x , s u p r a ; 1 6 B Ap ple m a n , s u p ra, § 9 0 8 5

. A wai v er m ay ap pl y t o an y pro v i si o n o f an i n s u ran ce co nt ract , ev en t h o u gh t h i s m ay h av e t h e effect o f b ri n gi ng wi t h in co v erag e ri s k s o ri g i n a l ly ex cl u d ed o r n o t

co v ered

. Ta t e , s u

pr a

.

4It is wel l es t a b l i s h e d t h at an i n s u rer i s ch arg ed w i t h k no wl ed g e o f t h e co n t en t s o f it s o w n p o l icy

. Y o u ng b l o o d

v

. Al l st a te Fi r e In s

. Co

. , 3 4 9 So .2 d 4 6 2 (La.Ap p

. 3 d Ci r.1 9 7 7 ); Da vi s v. A et n a Ca s u a l t y & S u r et y Co

. , 3 2 9 So .2 d 8 68 (La.Ap p

. 2 d Ci r.), wr it d en i ed
, 3 3 3 So .2 d 2 3 3 (1 9 7 6 ); Pel l et

s , In c. v. Mi l l er

s Mu t u a l Fi r e In s

. Co

. , 2 4 1 So .2 d 55 0 (La.Ap p

. 2 d Ci r.1 9 7 0 ), wr i t den ied
, 25 7 La. 6 0 7
, 2 43 So .2 d 2 74 ( 1 9 7 1 )

. In ad d i t i o n, n o t i ce o f fact s wh ich

wo u ld cau s e a reas o n ab le p ers on to i n q u i re fu rt h er i m p o ses

a d ut y o f i n v es t i g at i o n u p o n t h e i n s u rer, an d fai lu re t o i n v es t ig at e co n s ti t u t es a wai v er o f al l p o w ers o r p ri v i l eg es wh i ch a reas on ab l e s earch w o u l d hav e u n co v ered

. S wa i n f o r a nd o n b eh a l

f o f S wa i n v. Li fe In s

. Co

. o

f Lo u i s i a n a , 5 37 So .2 d 1 29 7 (La. A p p

. 2 d Ci r.1 9 8 9 ), wr i t d en i ed
, 5 4 1 So .2 d 89 5 (1 9 89 ); Fo r et v. Ter r eb o n n e To wi n g Co

. , In c ., 6 32 So .2 d 3 4 4 (La.Ap p

. 1 st Ci r.1 9 9 3 ); Pet er s o n v. Pa ci

f i c Fi r e In s

. Co
., 1 4 8 So

. 2 8 3 (La.Ap p .Orl .Ci r.1 9 33 ); F ra n z v. Un i t ed Ca s u a l t

y Co

. , 4 9 F.Su pp

. 2 6 7 (E. D

. L a.1 9 4 3 ); Co m m en t , La.L.Rev

. s u p ra 20 6 ; 16 B Ap p l em a n , s u p ra § 9 08 4

.

W ai v er p r i n ci pl es are ap p l i ed st ri n g en t ly t o up h o l d th e p ro h i b it i o n ag ai n s t co n fl i ct s o f i n teres t bet ween t h e i ns u rer

an d th e i n s u red w h i ch co u l d p o ten t i al l y affect l eg al
rep res en t at i o n i n o rd er t o rei n fo rce t he ro le o f t h e lawy er as t h e lo y al ad v ocat e o f th e cl i en t 's i n t eres t

. Emp l o yer s Mu t u a l Li ab i l i t

y In s

. Co

. o

f W i s co n s i n v. Sea r

s , Ro eb uck & Co

. , 62 1 F

. 2 d 7 4 6
, 7 4 7 (5 t h Ci r.1 9 8 0 ); Pa ci f i c In d emn i t y Co

. v. Acel Del i ver

y S er v

. , 4 8 5 F .2 d 1 1 6 9, 1 17 3 (5 t h C i r.1 97 3 ), cert d en i ed
, 4 1 5 U.S. 9 21
, 9 4 S.Ct

. 1 4 22
, 3 9 L. E d .2 d 47 6 (1 9 74 ); Pa r s on s v. Co n t i n en ta l Na t i o n a l Amer i ca n Gr o u

p , 1 1 3 Ari z. 2 2 3
, 5 5 0 P.2 d 94 (1 9 7 6 ); Emp lo y e r s C a s u a l t y Co

. v. Ti l ley
, 4 96 S.W .2 d 5 5 2 (Tx .1 9 7 3 ); Tr a ns a mer i ca In s. Gr o u p v

. Ch u b b a n d S

o n , In c ., 1 6 W as h.Ap p

. 2 4 7
, 5 54 P.2 d 1 08 0 (1 9 76 ). Cf. Du g a s Pes t Co n t

. v. Mu t u a l Fi r e, Ma r i ne a n d In l a n d In s

. Co

. , 5 0 4 So .2 d 10 5 1 (La.Ap p

. 1 s t Ci r.1 9 87 ); Br a s s ea u x v. Gi ro u rd
, 2 14 So .2 d 4 0 1 (La.Ap p. 3 d Ci r.), wr i t d en i ed
, 2 53 La. 6 0
, 2 16 So .2 d 30 7 (1 9 6 8 ); St o rm D r i l l i ng Co mp a n y v. A t l a n t i c Ri ch f i el d Co rp ., 38 6 F.Su p p. 8 3 0 (E.D.La.1 9 7 4 ). See Ru l e 1

. 7
, La.Ru l es o f Pro fes s i o nal Co n d u ct ; Res t at em en t o f th e Law (3 rd ), Th e Law Go v ern in g Lawy ers , C h a p t e r 8
, In t ro d u ct ory No t e, § § 2 0 1 & 2 0 2 (Ten t at i v e Draft 19 9 0 ); Op i n i o n 3 4 2
, O p i ni o n s o f t h e C o m m i t t ee o n Pro fes s i o nal Res p o ns i bi l i t y (La.St at e Bar As s 'n 1 9 7 4 ); 15 M cKen zi e & J o h n s o n , In su ran ce Law an d Pract i ce § 2 1 6 (1 9 86 ). Acco rdi ng ly , w hen a n i ns urer, w ith k no w ledg e of fa cts i ndi ca ti ng no nco v era g e under the i ns ura nce po l i cy , a ss um es or co nti nues the i ns ured' s defens e w i tho ut

o bta i ni ng a no nw a i v er a g ree me n t to res erv e i ts

5co v era g e defens e, the i ns urer w a i v es s uch p o l icy defens e

. Pe a vey Co

. v. M / V ANPA
, 9 7 1 F.2 d 1 1 6 8 (5 t h Ci r.1 9 9 2 ); Pi t t

s B y a n d Th r o ug h Pi t t

s v. Amer i ca n S

ec. Li f e In s

. Co

. , 9 3 1 F.2 d 3 5 1 (5 t h Ci r.1 9 9 1 ); Id ea l Mu t . In s. Co

. v. Myer s , 7 8 9 F.2 d 1 1 9 6 (5 t h Ci r.1 9 8 6); E mp l o yer s Mu t u a l Li a b i l it y In s

. Co

. o

f Wi s c on s i n v. S

ea r s , R oeb u ck & Co

. , 6 21 F.2 d 7 4 6
, 74 7 (5 t h Ci r.1 9 8 0); 1 6 C Ap pl em an , In s uran ce Law an d Pract i ce § 9 3 6 1

. 2 5 (1 9 8 1 ). Cf. Ta te v. Ch a r l es Ag u i l l a r d In s

. & R ea l E s t at e, In c ., 5 0 8 So .2 d 1 3 7 1 (La.1 9 8 7 ); Led

o u x v. Ol d Rep u b l i c Li

f e In s

. Co

. , 2 3 3 So .2 d 7 31 (La.Ap p

. 3 d Ci r.), cer t d en i ed 2 5 6 La. 3 7 2
, 2 3 6 So .2 d 5 01 (1 9 7 0 ).

Th ere i s n o g en u i n e d i s p u te as t o t h e m at eri al fact s p ert i n en t t o t h e w ai ver i s s ue. Ap pl y in g t h e fo reg o i n g p recep t s to t ho s e fact s , we c o n cl u d e t h at Ocean M ari ne

wa i v ed it s ri g h t t o as s ert a co verag e d efen s e b y as su m i n g

an d co n ti n u i n g t he d efen s e o f i t s in s u red i n t he face o f fact s i n d icat i n g t h at it h ad a ri g h t t o d e n y c o v erag e fo r th e acci d en t.

Id

. at 1 2 1 6 -1 2 1 7 [em

p h as is ad d ed ]

.

We fi n d S t ep t or e i s fact u al l y d i st in g u i s h ab l e fro m t h e cas e at b ar. S t ep to r e

i n v o l v ed a w a i v e r b as ed o n t h e act io n s o f t h e i n s u rer d u ri ng th e co u rs e of a s i n g l e

p ro ceed in g

. In s harp co n t ras t t o t h o s e fact s , t h e p l ai n t i ff in th e i n s t an t cas e i s s eek i n g

t o rel y o n t h e i n s u rer’ s act io n s wh i ch o ccu rred i n co n nect i o n wi t h a p ri o r 2 0 0 7 cl ai m

t o fi n d a wai v er o ccu rred i n t h e co n t ex t o f t h e cu rren t 2 0 1 3 cl ai m

.

Al t h ou g h we h av e n o t h ad o ccas i o n t o ad d res s t h i s p reci s e is s u e, th e Un i t ed

St at es Co u rt o f Ap p eal s fo r t h e Fi ft h Ci rcu i t reject ed a si m i l ar arg um en t in Amer i ca n

In t er na t i on a l S

p eci a l t y Li nes In s

. Co

. v. Ca na l In d emn i t y Co

. , 3 5 2 F.3 d 25 4 (5 t h Ci r.

2 0 0 3 ). W e q u o t e wi t h ap p ro v al t h e s o u n d reas o n i n g s et fo rt h in t h e o p i n i o n o f J u d g e

Carl St ewart :

W e al s o fi n d t hat Lo ui s i an a's Co d e art icl es g o v ern i n g th e

“ p ay m en t o f a t h i n g n o t o wed ” co m p el o u r co n cl us i o n t h at , co n t rary t o Can al 's arg u m e n t , a n ins urer do es no t, by

v irtue o f m a k

i ng a pa y m ent on a cl a i m , w ai v e the ri g ht to a s s ert co v era g e defens es to a s ubs equent cl a im

. See La. Ci v

. Co d e An n

. art s

. 2 2 9 9 -2 3 0 5 (2 0 0 3 ). In d eed
, Lo u i s i an a' s i n t erm ed i at e ap pel l at e co u rt s h av e rel i ed o n

6t h es e art i cl es i n h o l d i n g t h at an i n s u rer's erro n eo u s , o r ev en

n eg l i g en t , p ay m en t o f a cl ai m t o it s in s u red d o es n o t b ar t h e i n s u rer fro m l at er reco u p i n g t h e am o u n t pai d

. Dea r v. Bl u e Cr o s s o

f Lo u i s i a n a , 5 1 1 So .2 d 7 3
, 74 -7 6 (La.Ct .Ap p

. 3 d Ci r.1 9 8 7 ) (h o l d i n g t h at an in s u rer's erro n eo u s p ay m en t t o i ts i n s u red fo r m ed i cal ex p en s es ari s i n g f r o m a p reex i st i n g co n di ti o n t h at was ex cl u ded fro m co v erag e d i d

n ot b ar t h e i n s u rer fro m reco v eri n g t h e am o un t s p ai d ); Cen t r a l S u r. & In s

. Co r

p

. v. Co rb el l o , 7 4 So .2 d 3 4 1
, 3 4 4 (La.Ct .Ap p

. 1 s t Ci r.1 9 5 4 ) (al l o wi n g i n s u rer t o reco v er p ay m en t s i t m ad e t o i t s i n s u red fo r c o s t s rel at ed t o an acci d en t t h at o ccu rred aft er t h e ex p irat i o n o f th e po l i c y);

s ee al s o Pi o n eer Ba n k & Tr u s t Co

. v. Dea n 's Co p y Pr o d s ., In c ., 4 41 So .2 d 1 2 3 4
, 1 2 3 6 -3 7 (La.Ct .Ap p

. 2d Ci r.1 9 8 3 ) (h o l di ng t h at a b an k 's n eg l i g en ce i n m i s t ak en ly pay i n g a ju d g m en t cred i t o r wh o h a d n o acco u n t wi t h t he b an k d i d

n ot b ar t h e b an k 's cl ai m fo r rei m bu rs em en t o f t h e am o u n t

o f d eb t p ai d ). M o reo ver, u n d e r Lo ui s i an a Ci v i l Co de
art i cl e 2 2 9 9
, an al y zed i n d et ai l b el o w, ev en “ a p ers o n wh o k no wi ng l y h as p ai d a t h i n g n ot o wed m ay r e c l a i m ” th e

am o u n t p a i d fro m t h e reci p i en t

. La. Ci v.Co de. An n

. art

. 2 29 9 cm t

. (d ) (2 00 3 ). Ap pl i ed to t h e fact s b efo re us , ev en i f AISLIC's p ay m en t t o Can al fo r t h e Co m al Co u n t y l o s s

were m ad e k n o w i n g l y , s u ch kn o w i n g p ay m en t wo ul d n o t wai v e it s r i g h t t o recl ai m t h at am o un t

. W e t h erefo re are

u np ers u ad ed b y Can al 's as s ert i o n t ha t A I S L I C's p ay m en t o f
t h e Co m al Co u n t y cl ai m can wai v e t h e ri g h t to co n t es t th e subse que nt Bex ar Co u n t y cl ai m , wh en u n d er Lo ui s i an a l a w

s u ch p ay m en t wo ul d n o t ev e n es t op t h e p ay o r, AISLIC, f r o m recl ai m in g th e am o u n t s p ai d fo r t h e Co m al Co un t y l o s s

. I n sum , w e decl i ne to e x t end a ppl i ca ti on of the

w a i v e r rul e a rti cul a ted i n St ep t or e to the rel a ti o ns hi p

a m o ng i ns urers pa rti cul arl y w h e n, under the fa cts pres ented, s uch a ppl i ca ti o n w oul d co ntra v ene the L o u i s ia na Ci vi l Co de a nd thi s Ci rcui t' s precedent

. Th e r efo re, l i k e the di s tri ct co urt, w e reject the

co ntenti o n tha t A I SLI C w a i v ed the ri g ht to rel y o n i ts

“ other i ns ura nce” cl a us e to co ntes t l i a bi l i ty fo r t h e Bex a r Co unty l o s s by ha v i n g pa i d the pri o r Co m a l Co unty cl a i m .

Id

. at 2 7 1 [em

p has i s ad d ed ; fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed ]

. Ap p ly i n g t h i s reas o n in g t o t h e p res en t cas e, we fi n d an y p u rp o rt ed wai v er by

St at e Farm o f i t s d efen s es wi t h reg ard t o t h e 2 0 0 7 cl ai m can n o t co n st i tu t e a wai v er

7wi t h reg ard t o t h e cu rren t cl ai m

. 2 Accep t in g p l ai n ti ff’ s arg u m en t wo ul d res u l t i n t h e

ab s u rd co n cl u s i o n t h at St at e Farm i s fo rev er p recl u d ed fro m rai s i n g t h e an t i -s t ack i n g

d efen s e i n an y

fu t u re cl ai m

fi l ed b y p l ai n t i ff.

Acco rd i ng l y , we fi n d t he co u rt o f ap peal erred i n affi rm in g t he ju d g m en t o f t h e

d i s t ri ct co u rt wh i ch h el d p lai n t i ff was en t i t l ed t o reco v er bey on d t h e l im i t s o f h i s UM

p o l i cy . Th at ju dg m en t m us t b e rev ers ed

.

DECREE

Fo r t h e reas on s as s i g n ed
, t h e j u d g m en t o f th e co u rt o f ap p eal i s rev ers ed

.

J u d g m en t i s h ereb y ren d ered i n fav o r o f S t at e Farm M u t u al Au t o m o b i l e In s u ran ce

Co . d i s m i s s i n g t h e cl ai m s o f Bran d o n Fo rv en d el wi t h p reju di ce.

2 B ecause the 2007 claim is n ot before us, we n eed not pass on the question of whether the law or public policy

would countenance an action by a n insurer which has the effect of ex panding
coverag e bey ond the limits set f orth in L a. R.S. 22:1295, althoug h we acknowledg e this question has prompted some diverg e nce in the circuits. See Livas v. State Farm M utual Automobile Ins. Co.
, 99- 1169 ( L a.App. 5 Cir. 7/18/00), 797 So.2d 694 ( h olding that a policy could ex tend coverag e bey ond that required by the statute); Egle v. Allstate Ins. Co.
, 04-1144 (L a. App. 3rd Cir. 12/08/04), 889 So.2d 413 (ex plaining the f a c ts of Livas “are inapposite to the ones at hand, and we find this holding inapplicable to this case.”). I t suffices to say that for purposes of the facts before us, we find State F arm has not waived its defenses under the statute or its policy

.

8