Opinion ID: 1112278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: waiver of um coverage.

Text: Because of the strong public policy favoring UM coverage, formal rejection of that benefit is required. Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126 (La.1987). The insurer has the burden of proving a legal rejection of UM coverage. Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies, 585 So.2d 534 (La.1991). Manna is the named insured in the policy. In June of 1984, approximately midway into the policy period, there was a purported rejection of UM coverage apparently signed by Lemieux. A large X marked the signature line. There was no indication on the printed form that Lemieux was authorized to sign the rejection on behalf of Manna. There was no corporate resolution authorizing his signature. Futch's affidavit stated that Lemieux did not have authority to waive UM coverage in the umbrella policy. Insurance agent Thomas Brasher's affidavit stated that Lemieux had full insurance authority. However, Brasher, who obtained Lemieux's signature, admitted in deposition: I won't say specifically uninsured motorists. [Exhibit O.] At the time of this 1984 accident, LSA-R.S. 22:1406D(1)(a) spoke of a document in which the named insured or his legal representative ... initially rejects such coverage or selects lower limits.... (Emphasis added.) [The phrase remains in the statute but has been moved to Section D(1)(a)(ii).] The implication is that the rejection or selection must be contemporaneous with a policy application or the policy's issuance. Since the rejection or selection becomes part of the policy, it should not affect an existing policy. Even if Lemieux were authorized to sign the rejection of UM coverage, it is doubtful that the rejection could alter the existing policy midway into the policy period. There is also some indication that agent Brasher insisted on the UM waiver and failed to give Manna's officers an informed choice. See Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies, 585 So.2d 534 (La.1991), and Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 609 So.2d 195 (La.1992). The trial court and the court of appeal did not decide whether there was a valid informed rejection, authorized by Manna, six months into the policy period. Whether the waiver was authorized and whether it was valid are disputed issues of material fact. See Cavalier v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 528 So.2d 1038 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988), writ granted, reversed and remanded for trial on the merits at 530 So.2d 73 (La.1988). The summary judgment must be reversed. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, the summary judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for trial or, the merits. REVERSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED. MARCUS, J., dissents and assigns reason. LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons. HALL, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons. KIMBALL, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. ORTIQUE, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.