Opinion ID: 1103049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Levy, 324 So.2d at 9-10.

Text: In Holcomb v. Kincaid, 406 So.2d 646 (La. App. 2nd Cir.1981), plaintiff sued her ex-husband for fraud after discovering he had married her while not yet divorced from his first wife. Defendant's insurance company refused to furnish a defense on several grounds, one of which was that plaintiff had not suffered a bodily injury compensable under the policy. [15] The court of appeal found the definition of bodily injury was ambiguous, and construing the ambiguity against the insurer, held plaintiff's mental anguish and humiliation were within the policy's definition of bodily injury. As with the Levy court, the second circuit discussed the physical manifestations of plaintiff's mental anguish and concluded, The physical results which she alleges from defendant's actions would appear to fit within the policy definition of her bodily injury which includes sickness and disease. Holcomb, 406 So.2d at 649. In Bloodworth v. Carroll, 455 So.2d 1197 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 463 So.2d 1313 (La.1985), defendant intentionally backed his car into several people. Although plaintiff was not externally, physically injured in the incident, she suffered mental anguish as a result of fear that the car would hit her. Defendant's insurer argued there was no coverage under the policy because plaintiff had not suffered any bodily injury as defined therein. [16] The court of appeal held the policy definition of bodily injury includes mental anguish, fright, distress and humiliation such as that suffered by the plaintiff therein. Similarly, in Shepard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 545 So.2d 624 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 550 So.2d 627 (La.1989), the fourth circuit rejected the requirement there be a physical manifestation of the injury in order for it to be deemed a bodily injury under the insurance policy at issue therein. Contrarily, State Farm relies on Albin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 498 So.2d 171 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 498 So.2d 1088 (La.1986), in which the first circuit, in interpreting a bodily injury definition exactly like the one in this case, held the injuries suffered in a loss of consortium claim did not constitute a bodily injury under the policy. The court stated: We do not believe the term bodily injury, in its general and popular use, includes purely emotional injuries, especially where there is neither physical trauma nor a physical manifestation of the injury.