Justin Crowley v. Goauto Insurance Company, Brionne L. Myles, and Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company

JUSTIN CROWLEY * NO. 2019-CA-0643

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
GOAUTO INSURANCE *
COMPANY, BRIONNE L. FOURTH CIRCUIT
MYLES, AND PROGRESSIVE *
PALOVERDE INSURANCE STATE OF LOUISIANA
COMPANY *******

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2017-11896, DIVISION “L”
Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge
******
Judge Tiffany G. Chase
******
(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Tiffany G. Chase)

R. Brent Cueria
CUERIA LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
700 Camp Street, Suite 316
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Dianna Duffy Willem
Charles V. Giordano
Michael E. Escudier
HEBBLER & GIORDANO, L.L.C.
3501 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 400
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Karen M. Dicke
LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, L.L.P.
400 Poydras Street, Suite 1300
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED
NOVEMBER 27, 2019

The plaintiff, Justin Crowley (hereinafter “Mr. Crowley”), appeals the trial

court’s judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant,

Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company (hereinafter “Progressive”), on the

basis that Progressive’s insurance policy excludes coverage for plaintiff’s alleged

damages. After consideration of the record before this Court, and the applicable

law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on September

20, 2017, wherein Mr. Crowley sustained personal injuries when he was allegedly

rear-ended by defendant, Brionne Myles (hereinafter “Ms. Myles”). At the time of

the accident, Mr. Crowley was working in his capacity as a Lyft driver and logged

on to the Lyft ride-sharing application waiting for a ride request. Mr. Crowley was

insured as a resident driver under a Progressive automobile policy issued to his

wife, Juliette Crowley. The policy provided uninsured/underinsured motorist

coverage (hereinafter “UM”) with limits of $100,000 for each person and $300,000

for each accident.

1

Mr. Crowley filed a petition for damages against Ms. Myles, her insurer Go

Auto Insurance Company; and his insurer, Progressive, seeking UM coverage.

Mr. Crowley subsequently amended his petition to assert an additional claim for

UM coverage against Lyft’s insurer, Steadfast Insurance Company.

On July 23, 2018, Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment arguing

that its policy excludes coverage for Mr. Crowley’s UM claims. Specifically,

Progressive avers that Mr. Crowley was engaged in ride-sharing activities, an

excluded activity under the UM policy. In support of its motion for summary

judgment, Progressive submitted deposition testimony of Mr. Crowley wherein he

acknowledged, at the time of the accident, that he was logged on to the Lyft

application, searching for a passenger near the New Orleans Convention Center.

Progressive also introduced a certified copy of the insurance policy. Mr. Crowley

opposed the motion for summary judgment urging the trial court to find that the

exclusion violates public policy. He argues that the law favors coverage under an

insurance policy and that the exclusion adversely affects his ability to receive

complete reparation for his damages. Moreover, Mr. Crowley notes that

Progressive failed to establish the procedural requirements for a knowing waiver of

UM coverage. After a hearing, the trial court granted Progressive’s motion for

summary judgment and dismissed Mr. Crowley’s claims against Progressive, with

prejudice. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether an insurance policy provides or excludes coverage as a matter of

law is an issue that can be resolved by summary judgment. Chapital v. Harry

Kelleher & Co., Inc., 2013-1606, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/4/14), 144 So.3d 75, 82

(quoting Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2012–1686, p. 9 (La.App.

2

4 Cir. 6/5/13), 118 So.3d 1203, 1212). Likewise, when summary judgment is

granted in the context of statutory interpretation, a reviewing court is presented

with a question of law which is subject to de novo review. Billeaudeau v.

Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., 2016-0846, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/19/16), 218 So.3d 513,

520.

DISCUSSION

In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Crowley argues the exclusion of UM

coverage in a personal automobile insurance policy issued to an owner or operator

of a vehicle, when that individual is engaged in ride-sharing activity, is against

established public policy. In support of this position, Mr. Crowley relies on this

Court’s decision in Jean v. James River Ins. Co., 2019-0041, p.5 (La.App. 4 Cir.

5/29/19), 274 So.3d 43, 46; wherein this Court held that a transportation network

company (hereinafter “TNC”) is permitted to reject UM coverage when all of the

formalities are satisfied. Mr. Crowley submits that the trial court’s ruling in this

case, coupled with the holding of Jean, places drivers in an untenable situation

potentially leaving drivers without UM coverage. Mr. Crowley also argues that

since a TNC is required to reject UM coverage and adhere to the formal

requirements of La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii), the same formalities should likewise

apply when an insurer, under a personal insurance policy, seeks to exclude UM

coverage for ride-sharing activity. See Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 2006-0363,

pp. 11-13 (La. 11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544, 551 (setting out the six requirements for a

valid rejection of UM coverage).

This case presents two issues for our determination. While we must

ultimately determine whether the trial court erred in granting Progressive’s motion

for summary judgment finding that coverage was excluded under the insurance

3

policy, we do so while also considering Mr. Crowley’s argument that the exclusion

violates public policy.

In analyzing insurance policies, certain legal principles apply. First and

foremost is the rule that an insurance policy is a contract between the parties and

should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth

in the Civil Code. Edwards v. Daugherty, 2003–2103, p. 11 (La. 10/1/04), 883

So.2d 932, 940 (citing Cadwallader v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2002–1637, p. 3

(La. 6/27/03), 848 So.2d 577, 580). According to those rules, the responsibility of

the judiciary in interpreting insurance contracts is to determine the parties’

common intent. Id. (citing La. C.C. art. 2045). Courts begin their analysis of the

parties’ common intent by examining the words of the insurance contract itself.

See La. C.C. art. 2046; Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,

2000–2668, p. 6 (La. 4/3/01), 784 So.2d 637, 641 (“[T]he initial determination of

the parties’ intent is found in the insurance policy itself.”). In ascertaining the

common intent, words and phrases in an insurance policy are to be construed using

their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning, unless the words have

acquired a technical meaning, in which case the words must be ascribed their

technical meaning. See La. C.C. art. 2047.

The relevant portion of the Progressive policy provides, in pertinent part:

EXCLUSIONS – READ THE FOLLOWING EXCLUSIONS
CAREFULLY. IF AN EXCLUSION APPLIES, COVERAGE
WILL NOT BE AFFORDED UNDER THIS PART III.

Coverage under this Part III will not apply:

***

4

6. [t]o bodily injury sustained by any person while using or
occupying a covered auto, a rental auto, or a temporary substitute
auto while being used for ride-sharing activity.1

A clear reading of the policy language reveals that any bodily injury sustained

while using or occupying a covered auto while engaging in ride-sharing activities

are excluded. No further interpretation of the clear and unambiguous language is

required. The policy constitutes the law between Mr. Crowley and Progressive as

well as the nature of their relationship and what obligations are owed is governed

by that agreement.

An insured is deemed to know the contents of their insurance policy. See

Chapital, 2013-1606, p. 8, 144 So.3d at 83. This includes any exclusions limiting

potential coverage. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in finding

Progressive’s policy did not afford coverage for the UM claims asserted by Mr.

Crowley. However, it is significant to note that Mr. Crowley does not rest his

argument solely on the fact that the policy language is ambiguous, rather he

contends that the inclusion of the ride-sharing use exclusion in the policy, without

adherence to the formal requirements of La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii), violates public

policy.

In 2015, the Louisiana Legislature enacted Section 1 of Acts 2015, No. 266

effective January 1, 2016, adding Part C, and designated it as the “Transportation

1
The definitions section of the policy defines “ride-sharing activity” as:

[t]he use of any vehicle to provide transportation of persons or property in
connection with a transportation network company from the time a user logs on
to, or signs in to any online-enabled application, software, website or system until
the time the user logs out of, or signs off of, any such online-enabled application,
software, website or system, whether or not the user has accepted any
passenger(s) or deliver assignment, including the time the user is on the way to
pick up any passenger(s) or property, or is transporting any passenger(s) or
property.

5

Network Company Motor Vehicle Responsibility” act. Contained within this new

provision is La. R.S. 45:201.7 which expressly allow insurers to exclude UM

coverage in policies issued to an owner or operator of a personal vehicle when a

driver is engaged in ride-sharing activity. La. R.S. 45:201.7 provides:

(A)(1) Insurers that write automobile insurance in this state may
exclude any or all coverage afforded under the policy issued to an
owner or operator of a personal vehicle for any loss or injury that
occurs while a driver is logged on to a transportation network
company's digital network during the pre-trip acceptance period or
while a driver is engaged in a prearranged ride. This right to exclude
coverage shall apply to any or all coverage in an automobile insurance
policy including but not limited to:

(a) Liability coverage for bodily injury.
(b) Liability coverage for property damage.
(c) Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
(d) Medical payments coverage.
(e) Comprehensive physical damage coverage.
(f) Collision physical damage coverage.

(2) The exclusions permitted in this Subsection shall apply
notwithstanding any requirement under the Motor Vehicle Safety
Responsibility Law, R.S. 32:851 et seq. or other laws. Nothing in this
Section implies or requires that a personal automobile insurance
policy provide coverage while the driver is logged on to the
transportation network company’s digital network during the pre-trip
acceptance period, while the driver is engaged in a prearranged ride,
or while the driver otherwise uses a vehicle to transport passengers for
compensation.

(3) Nothing in this Part shall be deemed to preclude an insurer from
providing coverage for the transportation network company driver’s
vehicle, if it chooses to do so by contract or endorsement.

[Emphasis added]

Mr. Crowley concedes that La. R.S. 45:201.7 permits an insurer to exclude UM

coverage. However, he submits that this provision conflicts with the strong public

policy favoring UM coverage unless knowingly waived. Moreover, he argues that

an insurer should not be permitted to simply include an exclusion for UM

6

coverage, rather the exclusion of UM coverage should be “unmistakable and

knowing” and in conformity with the requirements set forth in La. R.S.

22:1295(1)(a)(ii).

In Louisiana, UM coverage is provided for by statute and embodies a strong

public policy. Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126, 1130 (La. 1987). The

object of UM insurance is to provide full recovery for automobile accident victims

who suffer damages caused by a tortfeasor who is not covered by adequate liability

insurance. Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 609 So.2d 195, 197 (La.1992) (citing

Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575, 578 (La.1982)). The

original UM statute, adopted by 1962 La. Acts No. 187, required UM coverage in

every automobile liability insurance policy issued in Louisiana, in an amount not

less than the limits mandated by law for bodily injury damages. Duncan, 2006-

0363, p. 5, 950 So.2d at 547-48. The UM statute was amended several times since

its inception. In 1977, La. Acts No. 438 specifically required that the rejection of

UM coverage be in writing. Thereafter, in 1987, La. Acts No. 436, La. R.S.

22:1406 was amended to require that any rejection or selection of lower limits shall

be made only “on a form designed by each insurer.” In Tugwell, 609 So.2d at 197,

our Supreme Court held that the form used by the insurance company must give

the applicant the opportunity to make a “meaningful selection” from his options

provided by the statute: (1) UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits in the

policy; (2) UM coverage lower than bodily injury limits in the policy; or (3) no

UM coverage. The current version of the UM statute that allows for a rejection of

UM coverage is codified in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii) which provides:

Such rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-
only coverage shall be made only on a form prescribed by the
commissioner of insurance. The prescribed form shall be provided

7

by the insurer and signed by the named insured or his legal
representative. The form signed by the named insured or his legal
representative which initially rejects such coverage, selects lower
limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall be conclusively
presumed to become a part of the policy or contract when issued
and delivered, irrespective of whether physically attached thereto.
A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable
presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a
lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage. The form signed by
the insured or his legal representative which initially rejects coverage,
selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall remain
valid for the life of the policy and shall not require the completion of a
new selection form when a renewal, reinstatement, substitute, or
amended policy is issued to the same named insured by the same
insurer or any of its affiliates. An insured may change the original
uninsured motorist selection or rejection on a policy at any time
during the life of the policy by submitting a new uninsured motorist
selection form to the insurer on the form prescribed by the
commissioner of insurance. Any changes to an existing policy,
regardless of whether these changes create new coverage, except
changes in the limits of liability, do not create a new policy and do not
require the completion of new uninsured motorist selection forms.
For the purpose of this Section, a new policy shall mean an original
contract of insurance which an insured enters into through the
completion of an application on the form required by the insurer.

[Emphasis added]

Mr. Crowley submits that La. R.S. 45:201.7 effectively negates the requirements of

La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii) and is against public policy.

The Legislature is presumed to have enacted a statute in light of the

preceding statutes involving the same subject matter and court decisions construing

those statutes, and where the new statute is worded differently from the preceding

statute, the Legislature is presumed to have intended to change the law. Fontenot

v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 2002–0439, 2002–0442, 2002–0478, pp. 13–14

(La. 1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, 24. Where two statutes deal with the same subject

matter, they should be harmonized if possible, as it is the duty of the courts, in the

construction of statutes, to harmonize and reconcile laws. Oubre v. Louisiana

8

Citizens Fair Plan, 2011-0097, p. 12 (La. 12/16/11), 79 So.3d 987, 997. However,

“the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail as an exception

to the statute more general in character.” McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp.,

2010-2775, p. 12 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1218, 1228; see also M.J. Farms, Ltd. v.

Exxon Mobil Corp., 2007-2371, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 27

(“legislative language will be interpreted on the assumption the Legislature was

aware of existing statutes … and with knowledge of the effect of their acts and a

purpose in view.”). The exclusion provided for in La. R.S. 45:201.7, pertaining to

“automobile insurance provisions” under the Transportation Network Company

Motor Responsibility Vehicle Act supersedes the general requirements of La. R.S.

22:1295(1)(a)(ii) contained in the “INSURANCE AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS IN
2
GENERAL.”

We find no absurd or inequitable result as the legislation does not “preclude

an insurer from providing coverage for the [TNC] driver's vehicle, if it chooses to

do so by contract or endorsement.” La. R.S. 45:201.7(A)(3). The legislature

specifically contemplated a situation such as the one sub judice by allowing a TNC

driver to negotiate with their insurer for UM coverage during ride-sharing activity.

See McGlothlin, 2010-2775, p. 11, 65 So.3d at 1228 (“courts are bound … to give

effect to all parts of a statute and to construe no sentence, clause, or word as

meaningless and surplusage if a construction giving force to and preserving all

words can legitimately be found”). In keeping with the declared findings of the

legislature, La. R.S. 45:201.7(A)(3) shifts the responsibility of acquiring UM

coverage for ride-sharing activity under personal insurance policies to TNC

drivers. See La. R.S. 45:201.12 (the TNC Statute shall be construed “to exact strict

2
See e.g. La. R.S. 22:1261, et seq.

9

compliance by [TNCs] and their participating drivers with the requirements of R.S.

45:201.5 through 45: 201.9”); La. R.S. 45:201.2 (“regulation and control [shall] be

exercised over the operation of [TNCs] and their participating drivers to ensure

their responsibility in order that the paramount interest of the public be protected”)

(emphasis added). As a Lyft driver, Mr. Crowley is not precluded from obtaining

UM coverage for his ride-sharing activities.

Public policy is set by the legislature in enacting statutes. See M.J. Farms,

2007-2371, pp. 16-17, 998 So.2d at 29; Krielow v. Louisiana Dept. of Agric. &

Forestry, 2013-1106, pp. 4-5, 125 So.3d 384, 388 (only our state constitution

limits “the otherwise plenary power of the people exercised through the

legislature”). The paramount consideration in statutory interpretation is

ascertainment of the legislative intent but the starting point in interpretation is the

language of the statute itself. See M.J. Farms, 2007-2371, p. 13, 998 So.2d at 27.

“When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd

consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may

be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” La. C.C. art. 9. Only when the

language of a statute is ambiguous should courts resort to general public policy in

an attempt to divine the intent of the legislature. See M.J. Farms, 2007-2371, p.

13, 998 So.2d at 27; Gulf Oil Corp. v. State Mineral Bd., 317 So.2d 576, 586 (La.

1974) (on rehearing). Such is not the case here. “It is not the prerogative of the

judiciary to disregard public policy decisions underlying legislation or to reweigh

balances of interests and policy considerations already struck by the legislature.”

Progressive Sec. Ins. Co. v. Foster, 1997-2985, p. 21 (La. 4/23/98), 711 So.2d 675,

688. “What the law ought to be is not a juristic question, but is a matter which

10

addresses itself solely to the Legislature of the state.” Carpenter v. Metropolitan

Life Ins. Co., 182 La. 813, 820, 162 So. 630, 632 (1935).

We find the trial court did not err in granting Progressive’s motion for

summary judgment. We likewise reject Mr. Crowley’s argument that the trial

court’s application of La. R.S. 45:201.7, absent the formal requirements of La. R.S.

22:1295(1)(a)(ii), violates public policy.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting summary

judgment in favor of Progressive is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

11