Source: https://www.louisianainjurylawyerblog.com/category/insurance-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:43:09+00:00

Document:
Insurance Law Category Archives — Louisiana Injury Lawyer Blog Published by Louisiana, Injury Attorneys — Dué Guidry Piedrahita Andrews L.C.
Ashanti Green v. Michael Johnson, 2014-0292 (La.10/15/14), with Justice Hughes writing for the Louisiana Supreme Court, held that since the Allstate auto policy at issue contractually included UM coverage, the express provisions of the policy (or contract) governed whether UM coverage existed for the accident, and statutory UM coverage under La. R.S. 22:1295 was not at issue.
Plaintiff co-owned a motorcycle with a friend. When plaintiff was killed by an underinsured motorist, his beneficiaries filed a claim for UM benefits against the co-owner’s Allstate auto policy. The express terms of the Allstate auto policy did not provide for bodily injury liability coverage, but did provide for UM coverage.
In granting summary judgment in favor of Allstate, the lower courts relied on jurisprudential language holding that, “it is well-settled that a person who does not qualify as a liability insured under a policy of insurance is not entitled to UM coverage under the policy” as a basis for finding that there was no UM coverage for the accident at issue under the co-owner’s Allstate policy. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that this jurisprudential language is limited to the provision of “statutory” UM as required by La.R.S. 22:1295, and does not apply to UM that is actually provided for in the insurance policy (or contract). Thus, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that even when an insurer is not required by law to provide UM coverage because the policy does not provide liability coverage, the insurer is nevertheless free to contract to provide UM coverage.
(2) if no UM coverage is found under the policy provisions, then the UM statute (La.R.S. 22:1295) is applied to determine whether statutory UM coverage is mandated.
See also Bernard v. Ellis, 11-2377 (La. 7/2/12), 111 So.3d 995, 1000 (recognizing that an automobile insurance policy must first be examined for contractual UM coverage, and if contractual coverage is absent, “if a plaintiff is insured under the auto liability coverage, he is entitled to UM coverage” (citing Magnon v. Collins and Filipski v. Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company)). If there is express contractual UM coverage in the policy, it is unnecessary to apply the UM statute to determine whether UM coverage is statutorily mandated.
In this case, the Allstate auto policy provided UM coverage to the plaintiff because he met the definition of an “insured person” since he was a “person while in, on, getting into or out of an `insured auto’ with [the policyholder’s] express or implied permission.” The co-owned motorcycle qualified as an “insured auto” for purposes of UM coverage since it was an after-acquired “land motor vehicle” as set forth in the policy.
The motorcycle did not qualify as an “insured auto” for purposes of liability coverage since it was not an after-acquired “four wheel” auto as set forth in the policy.
Thus, the distinction between the UM provisions and the liability provisions vis-à-vis coverage was that the UM provisions included within the definition of “insured auto,” for coverage as an after-acquired vehicle, a “land motor vehicle,” which would encompass a motorcycle, while the liability provisions included within the definition of “insured auto,” for coverage as an after-acquired vehicle, only a “four wheel” auto, which would exclude liability coverage for a motorcycle.
The Louisiana Supreme Court found no ambiguity in this Allstate policy; the parties clearly intended to extend greater UM coverage to after-acquired vehicles, by defining an “insured auto” to encompass any “land motor vehicle” (with only three listed exceptions), than for liability coverage, which was limited to “four wheel” autos. The inclusion in the policy of differing definitions for “insured auto” in differing coverage sections produced no absurd consequences, and the policy was applied as written.
No person can insure against his own intentional acts. Public policy forbids it. But public policy does not forbid one to insure against the intentional acts of another for which he may be vicariously liable.
If the exclusionary language in the personal liability insurance policy applies to the intent of “the” insured, then only the intent of “the” person for whom coverage is sought for his/her vicarious liability under the policy will be dispositive, rather than the intent of the intentional actor for whom the person for whom coverage is sought is vicariously liable, and coverage will not be excluded. However, if the exclusionary language in the policy applies to “an” or “any” or “one or more” insureds, then the intent of the intentional actor will be dispositive and coverage will be excluded.
See McBride v. Lyles, 303 So. 2d 795 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1974) (“the” insured); Lamkin v. Brooks, 498 So.2d 1068 (La. 1986) (“any” insured); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Blanchard, 431 So.2d 913 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983) (“an” insured); and Leslie v. Andrews, 905 So.2d 368 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2005), writ denied, 901 So.2d 1077 (La.2005) (“one or more” insureds).
When determining whether the intentional injury exclusion — “willful and malicious acts of any insured” — will preclude coverage in a personal liability insurance policy, it is immaterial whether the insured intended the actual resulting injuries.
The act is “willful” if the actor has intentionally done an act of unreasonable character in reckless disregard of the risk known to him, or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow. It is usually accompanied by a conscious indifference to consequences, amounting almost to a willingness that harm should follow.
“Malicious” is characterized by, or involving, malice; having, or done with, wicked or mischievous intentions or motives; wrongful and done intentionally without just cause or excuse.
Louisiana Revised Statute 9:5639 provides that actions for the recovery of damages sustained in motor vehicle accidents brought pursuant to UM provisions in motor vehicle insurance policies are prescribed by two years reckoning from the date of the accident in which the damage was sustained.
A timely filed suit against the tortfeasor interrupts prescription against the UM insurer because they are solidary obligors. Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La.1982).
A liability insurer and a UM insurer are not solidary obligors, so suit against the liability insurer does not interrupt prescription against the UM insurer. Rizer v. American Sur. & Fid. Ins. Co., 669 So.2d 387 (La.1996).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.