Opinion ID: 1803523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Historical Overview of La.R.S. 22:1406

Text: The Louisiana Legislature enacted Louisiana's uninsured motorist law by Act No. 187 of 1962, which amended La. R.S. 22:1406 to add subsection (D). The law was passed to aid a growing class of automobile-accident victims who were left uncompensated because their injuries were caused by uninsured drivers. See, W. Shelby McKenzie, Louisiana Uninsured Motorist Coverage  After Twenty Years, 43 L. La. Rev. 691 (1983). The Louisiana Legislature has amended this statute numerous times since its inception. Id. at 691-694; also See, Historical and Statutory Notes to La. R.S. 22:1406. Relevant to this discussion, in 1972, the law was amended by Act No. 137 which introduced the concept of underinsured protection. The amendment provided that the statutory definition of uninsured motor vehicle would include an insured motor vehicle when the automobile liability insurance coverage on such vehicle is less than the uninsured motorist coverage carried by an insured. The Louisiana Legislature broadened the coverage of the statute by Act No. 154 of 1974. This amendment rewrote the 1972 language from less than the uninsured motorist coverage carried by an insured to less than the amount of damages suffered by an insured.... The purpose of the UM statute then read as follows: [T]o promote full recovery for damages by innocent automobile accident victims by making uninsured motorist coverage available for their benefit as primary protection when the tortfeasor is without insurance and as additional or excess coverage when he is inadequately insured. Bond v. Commercial Union Assurance, 407 So.2d 401 (La.1981); Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La.1982). In Snider v. Murray, 461 So.2d 1051 (La.1985), this court addressed the issue of whether Louisiana's UM law could be applied to a foreign insurance policy covering a vehicle registered in a foreign state. Snider arose from a fatal accident that occurred in Louisiana and involved a Louisiana defendant. At the time of the accident, the victim, Snider, had a UM insurance policy in force that was negotiated and issued to him in Texas. He had obtained the UM insurance when he was a Texas resident, although he subsequently changed his residency to Louisiana. Snider's estate sued his Texas UM insurance carrier in Louisiana. However, the Texas UM insurance policy contained offset provisions that were prohibited in Louisiana. The trial court refused to apply the Texas offset provisions and applied Louisiana law, and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that Louisiana law applied under an interest analysis theory because Louisiana's interest in the dispute superceded that of Texas. On the defendant's application, this court granted certiorari to resolve a split in the lower courts regarding the application of Louisiana's UM law to foreign insurance policies. The applicable Louisiana statute, La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1), at the time provided in pertinent part: D. The following provisions shall govern the issuance of uninsured motorist coverage in this state. (1)(a) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto in not less than the limits of bodily injury liability provided by the policy, under provisions filed with and approved by the commissioner of insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; provided, however, that the coverage required under this Subsection shall not be applicable where any insured named in the policy shall reject in writing the coverage or selects lower limits. (Emphasis added). In its reasoning, this Court agreed with the decision reached in Abel v. White, 430 So.2d 202 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), where the court of appeal analyzed La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1) and concluded that the statute expressly applied to policies delivered in Louisiana to cover vehicles garaged in Louisiana. Relying on Abel, this Court highlighted the pertinent language in La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1) that mandates that the statute only be applied to policies that are delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state. Snider, supra, at 1053. Since the UM insurance policy in question was issued to Snider in Texas, this Court held that the plaintiffs could not impose Louisiana's UM requirements upon a Texas UM policy and concluded by stating: Perhaps the Legislature could have enacted a law which under modern conflict of laws theories would affect insurance policies written in other states when the accident occurs in Louisiana, but the Legislature did not include such a provision in La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1). Id. at 1053-1054. Following the Snider decision, the Louisiana Legislature amended Louisiana's UM law and enacted La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii) by Act No. 444 of 1987 [4] . Two changes were made to the statutory language highlighted by this court in Snider, supra, at 1053. First, the words in this state were deleted. Second, the words or as provided in this Subparagraph were added. Thus, the statute now mandated that Louisiana's UM law be applied to policies that are delivered or issued for delivery with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state or as provided in this Subparagraph.... The Subparagraph referred to is the enabling statute, La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii) which provides as follows: This Subparagraph and its requirement for uninsured motorist coverage shall apply to any liability insurance covering any accident which occurs in this state and involves a resident of this state. [5] In Act No. 203 of 1988, the Louisiana Legislature again amended and reenacted Louisiana's UM law. In addition to several non-germane amendments, changes were once more made to the language underscored by this court in Snider, supra, at 1053. First, contrary to its previous amendment, the Legislature again included the words in this state that were deleted in Act No. 444 of 1987. Second, the phrase that read any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state was rewritten. Consequently, at the time of the present cause of action, the material language of La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1) mandated that Louisiana UM law be applied to policies that are delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle designed for use on public highways and required to be registered in this state or as provided in this Subparagraph.... The enabling statute, La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii), has remained unchanged and has been cited by several lower courts as superceding our decision in Snider, supra . In Willett v. National Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 594 So.2d 966 (La.App. 3rd Cir.02/12/92), writ denied, 598 So.2d 355 (La.1992), the court held that (w)e interpret the effect of Act 444 of 1987 as overruling Snider.  Id. at 969. The court in Reeves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 619 So.2d 202 (La.App. 3rd Cir.06/02/1993), determined that the Louisiana Legislature added La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii) in an obvious effort to legislatively overrule Snider.  Id. at 204. In Bell v. Farmer's Ins. Group, 93-2067 (La.App. 4th Cir.4/14/94), 635 So.2d 1305, the court concluded that, in reaction to Snider, supra, the Legislature adopted Act 444 which imposed Louisiana's UM obligations on any liability insurance covering any accident in this state which involves a Louisiana resident. Id. at 1311. Making reference to its prior decision in Willett, supra, the court in Trautman v. Poor, 96-627 (La.App. 3rd Cir.12/11/96), 685 So.2d 516 found that La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii) reflected the Legislature's intent to overrule Snider and to broaden the reach of Louisiana's uninsured/underinsured motorist law on coverage questions. Id. at 520. Lastly, in Adams v. Thomason, 32,728 (La.App. 2nd Cir.3/1/00), 753 So.2d 416, writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.6/16/00), 764 So.2d 965, the court opined that the Legislature responded to Snider, supra, by adding La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii). Id. at 425. We agree that La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(iii) superceded Snider, supra, to the extent that now Louisiana's UM law can be applied to foreign insurance policies in multistate cases when the accident occurs in Louisiana and involves a Louisiana resident. However, the dispute for our consideration is the split in the lower courts regarding whether Louisiana's UM law must be applied to the interpretation of a foreign insurance policy in a multistate case when the accident occurs in Louisiana and involves a Louisiana resident or whether courts should first engage in a choice-of-law analysis to determine which state's law applies.