Opinion ID: 1780771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: insured persons

Text: 1. You and any resident relative. 2. Any person while in, on, getting into or out of your insured auto with your permission. 3. Any other person who is legally entitled to recover because of bodily injury to you, a resident relative, or an occupant of your insured auto with your permission.    DEFINITIONS    4. Resident-means a person who physically resides in your household with the intention of continuing residence there. Your unmarried dependent children while temporarily away from home will be considered residents if they intend to resume residing in your household. 5. You or Your-means the policyholder named on the declarations page and that policyholder's resident spouse. (Emphasis in original). An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed by using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Louisiana Civil Code. Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 97-3085, p. 4 (La.10/20/98), 719 So.2d 437, 439; Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 93-0911, p. 5 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 759, 763. The judiciary's role in interpreting insurance contracts is to ascertain the common intent of the parties to the contract. See La. Civ. Code art. 2045; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 439; Louisiana Ins., 630 So.2d at 763. Words and phrases used in an insurance policy are to be construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning, unless the words have acquired a technical meaning. See La. Civ Code art. 2047; Peterson v. Schimek, 98-1712, p. 5 (La.3/2/99), 729 So.2d 1024, 1028-29; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 440-441; Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183. An insurance contract, however, should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or strained manner under the guise of contractual interpretation to enlarge or to restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by unambiguous terms or achieve an absurd conclusion. Carrier v. Reliance Ins. Co., 99-2573, p. 11 (La.4/11/00), 759 So.2d 37, 43; Peterson, 729 So.2d at 1029. The rules of construction do not authorize a perversion of the words or the exercise of inventive powers to create an ambiguity where none exists or the making of a new contract when the terms express with sufficient clearness the parties' intent. Succession of Fannaly v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 01-1355, p. 4 (La.1/15/02), 805 So.2d 1134, 1138; Peterson, 729 So.2d at 1029. Ambiguous policy provisions are generally construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage. La. Civ.Code art. 2056; Carrier, 759 So.2d at 43; Louisiana Ins., 630 So.2d at 764. Under this rule of strict construction, equivocal provisions seeking to narrow an insurer's obligation are strictly construed against the insurer. Carrier, 759 So.2d at 43. That strict construction principle applies only if the ambiguous policy provision is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations; for the rule of strict construction to apply, the insurance policy must be not only susceptible to two or more interpretations, but each of the alternative interpretations must be reasonable. Carrier, 759 So.2d at 43-44, (emphasis in original); Louisiana Ins., 630 So.2d at 770. If the policy wording at issue is clear and unambiguously expresses the parties' intent, the insurance contract must be enforced as written. Fannaly, 805 So.2d at 1137; Louisiana Ins., 630 So.2d at 764. Courts lack the authority to alter the terms of insurance contracts under the guise of contractual interpretation when the policy's provisions are couched in unambiguous terms. Peterson, 729 So.2d at 1029; Louisiana Ins., 630 So.2d at 764. The determination of whether a contract is clear or ambiguous is a question of law. Louisiana Ins., 630 So.2d at 764. The Term Relative With these settled principles of construction in mind, we now turn to the policy at issue before us and whether the term relative was ambiguous. As a general rule, when the word relative is used in insurance contracts it is intended to include persons related by marriage as well as blood. Zeringue v. Zeringue, 94-1411, p. 2 (La. Ct.App. 1 Cir. 4/7/95), 654 So.2d 721, 722, writ denied, 95-1660 (La.10/6/95), 661 So.2d 471 ( citing Hernandez v. Comco Ins. Co., 357 So.2d 1368, 1370 (La. Ct.App. 4 Cir.1978), writ denied, 359 So.2d 1305 (La.1978)). Our appellate courts have consistently held that the term relative includes relatives by blood or marriage. 15 William McKenzie & H. Alston Johnson, III, Louisiana Civil Law TreatiseInsurance Law and Practice § 43, p. 128 (2d ed.1996). The First Circuit found no merit to the argument that the insurance policy was ambiguous because it did not define the term relative. Zeringue, 654 So.2d at 722. As that court correctly noted, the jurisprudence clearly indicates that the term relative includes persons related by blood as well as marriage. Zeringue, 654 So.2d at 723; see also Hernandez, supra; Robertson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Ins. Co., 629 So.2d 445, 446 (La. Ct.App. 3 Cir.1993); Liprie v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 143 So.2d 597, 601 (La. Ct.App.3 Cir.1962). Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1989) defines relative as one who is connected with another or others by blood or marriage. In the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) and in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., the word relative is defined as a kinsman; a person connected with another by blood or affinity. The Third Circuit stated in Liprie, supra, that a review of the many definitions of the word relative contained in Words and Phrases indicates that when the word relative is used in insurance contracts and where no other specific definition is given, it is generally interpreted as including persons who are related by affinity or marriage as well as by blood or consanguinity. Liprie, 143 So.2d at 601. A review of Words and Phrases, Vol. 60, p. 221, reveals that the term relative indicates persons related by blood as well as marriage. In our review of Louisiana's jurisprudence, we find no case which includes a foster child within the definition of relative. In further study of this issue, we have looked at authorities and courts outside of Louisiana for a comparison and find these other sources are of the same view that we express in this opinion. Specifically, one authority states that in the absence of policy definitions to the contrary, the term relative of the insured has been held not to include a former or current foster child of the insured. 8 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d, § 114:19, p. 114-32 (1997). Addressing the issue of whether a foster child could be considered a relative of the policyholder so as to be entitled to liability coverage under the terms of the policy, the Georgia appellate court found that pursuant to the common understanding of the word relative, the existence of the foster parent-child relationship did not operate to make them relatives within the contemplation of the policy. Ledford v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 189 Ga.App. 866, 867, 377 S.E.2d 693, 695 (1989), aff'd, 259 Ga. 560, 386 S.E.2d 662 (1989). Unless expressly covered by the policy, a foster child living with the motor vehicle policyholder is not a relative of the policyholder, so as to be entitled to liability coverage under the policy. 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1046 (1993). The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Alaska law, had to decide whether the term relative in an automobile insurance policy included the child of the policyholder's unmarried cohabitant. Allstate Ins. v. Shelton, 105 F.3d 514, 515 (9th Cir.1997). The insured, Mr. Shelton, bought a house with Ms. Kohlbeck and lived with her and her four children. Approximately eleven months after they moved in together, one of Ms. Kohlbeck's children was struck by a car while riding her bicycle and killed. Mr. Shelton's divorce from his wife was finalized two months after the child's death, and he and Ms. Kohlbeck married one month later. Ms. Kohlbeck-Shelton asserted a claim for coverage under the UM policy provisions of an Allstate policy issued to Mr. Shelton. The policy at issue did not define relative. The court concluded because the child was not connected with the insured by blood or affinity, she was not his relative. Id. at 516. Where insurance companies have not defined `relative,' courts have applied its ordinary meaning as persons connected by blood or marriage. Id. at 516-517 citing, Groves v. State Farm Life and Casualty Co., 171 Ariz. 191, 829 P.2d 1237 (Ct.App.1992) (In insurance cases, one not a relative by blood or marriage is not covered as a relative). Interestingly, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal held that a foster parent was not a relative within the meaning of a criminal statute providing that no relative of a sexual abuse victim may be present in the room during recording of a statement by the victim. State v. Gray, 533 So.2d 1242, 1249 (La. Ct.App. 4 Cir.1988), writ denied, 546 So.2d 1209 (La. 1989). The defendant, father of the victims, was convicted of aggravated rape of his three children. On appeal, defendant challenged the admission of the videotapes of the victims into evidence, because the foster father of two of the children appeared on one tape for the last few minutes after the children had been extensively questioned; the defendant argued this violated La.Rev.Stat. 15:440.4(A)(2). [3] That court found that a foster parent is not a relative within the meaning of the statute. Gray, 533 So.2d at 1249. Although this interpretation was within the context of a criminal procedure statute, we nevertheless find it relevant in determining whether a foster parent is a relative of the foster child in Louisiana. Further support that a foster child is not a relative can be found in this Court's jurisprudence delineating the non-delegable custodial duty of the State with regard to foster children. When the State (through its Department of Social Services) is awarded legal custody of a child by the juvenile court, the law imposes upon the State the duty of care and protection of that child. Miller v. Martin, 02-0670, p. 9 (La.1/28/03) 838 So.2d 761, 767. Although the State contracts with foster parents to care for the children in the State's custody, these foster parents are fulfilling the State's responsibilities and are acting for it with regard to the care of such children. Vonner v. State through Dep't of Public Welfare, 273 So.2d 252, 256 (La.1973); Miller, 838 So.2d at 767. Foster children are not relatives of their foster parents by affinity; the State places them temporarily with foster parents. After a thorough study of the issue before us, we find the court of appeal erred in its determination that the Allstate policy providing coverage of a resident relative is vague and ambiguous without an accompanying definition of the term relative. The court noted that jurisprudence reveals that UM policies of other insurers have defined the term resident relative as specifically including foster children. [4] The court further noted the jurisprudence shows several cases in which insurance policies define the term family member as specifically including foster children in that definition. [5] We find the court of appeal fell into error by comparing the present case to other cases in our jurisprudence that are significantly distinguishable in that the policies at issue in the cited cases specifically included foster children within the definition of relative or family member. None of the cases cited by the appellate court involved an issue of coverage regarding a foster child. The appellate court further erred in reaching a conclusion that because some insurance policies specifically include foster children in their policy definition of relative or family member, the term relative is somehow rendered ambiguous in the policy at issue. In making this assumption, the appellate court ignored the fundamental precept that it was required to interpret the term using its plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning as set forth in the policy at hand. See La. Civ.Code art. 2047; Peterson, 729 So.2d at 1028-29; Carbon, 719 So.2d at 440-441. Moreover, in the absence of a conflict with statutes or with public policy, insurers have the same rights as do individuals to limit their liability and to enforce whatever conditions they impose upon their obligations. McKenzie, § 4, p. 7. It is the particular insurance policy of the insured that establishes the limits of liability and it is well established that this contract of insurance is the law between the parties. When we find the contract of insurance is clear and unambiguous, as we do here in this case, we must enforce the policy as written. Notwithstanding our finding the term relative is not ambiguous as used in the policy of insurance at issue, we will briefly comment on plaintiffs' arguments for completeness of review. Plaintiffs urge that Allstate's policy violates the statutory scheme of UM coverage which requires an insurer to extend UM coverage to those insured under the liability policy. La.Rev.Stat. 22:1406 requires that insurance policies provide UM coverage only for persons insured under the policy. Taylor v. Rowell, 98-2865, p. 6 (La.5/18/99), 736 So.2d 812, 817. [I]t 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. Magnon v. Collins, 98-2822, p. 5 (La.7/7/99), 739 So.2d 191, 196. In the Allstate policy at issue before us, the liability policy limited coverage to the named insured and any resident relative, while using a non-owned auto. The foster children were not insured while using a non-owned auto under the liability policy; therefore Allstate did not violate La.Rev.Stat. 22:1406 by not extending UM coverage to the foster children, who were injured while riding in a non-owned auto. Plaintiffs further urge the exclusion of foster children from the UM coverage violates La. Const. Art. I, § 3 and therefore, the insurance policy violates public policy. It is axiomatic that [t]he equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions prohibit state action that unreasonably favors one individual or class over another. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 882 F.2d 178, 181 (5th Cir.1989) (emphasis in original). In this matter before us, plaintiffs have not articulated any state action that violates La. Const. Art. I, § 3. Nor have plaintiffs shown that the policy conflicts with public policy or statutory provisions. Accordingly, this argument has no merit.