Charles Higgins v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

CHARLES HIGGINS NO. 2020 CW 0179
PAGE 1 OF 2

VERSUS

LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU AUGUST 10, 2020
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In Re: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company,
applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District

Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 671722.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ,
JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s January 6, 2020
judgment denying the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
Farm Bureau"), is hereby reversed. When the existence of

uninsured/ underinsured (" UM") coverage under a policy of

automobile insurance is
employ two- step
at issue, the courts a

analysis: ( 1) insurance policy is first examined
the automobile

to determine whether UM coverage is contractually provided under
the express provisions of the policy; ( 2) if no UM coverage is
found under the policy provisions, then the UM statute is
applied to determine whether statutory coverage is mandated.

Green ex rel. Peterson v. Johnson, 2014- 0292 ( La. 10/ 15/ 14), 149
So. 3d 766, 773- 74.

Plaintiff, Charles Higgins, was issued a policy of

insurance by Farm Bureau that contained a " furnished for regular
use" exclusion. Higgins was given a vehicle by his employer to
use on a daily basis, and Higgins was driving that vehicle at

the time of the accident. Though Higgins is not guaranteed the
same vehicle every day, he usually is assigned the same vehicle,
which contains all of his tools and other items essential to

completing his job. Higgins equated his work -assigned vehicle

to "
your locker at work." We find the " furnished for regular

use" exclusion applies, and UM coverage is not afforded under

the policy. Our analysis then turns to whether the UM statute,
La. R. S. 22: 1295, mandates coverage. "[ I] n order for a tort

victim to be entitled to statutory UM coverage, which would be
an implied amendment to an automobile liability policy not

expressly containing such coverage, the tort victim seeking UM

coverage must qualify as a liability insured under the policy at
issue." Green, 149 So. 3d at 772, citing Magnon v. Collins, 98-
2822 ( La. 7/ 7/ 99), 739 So. 2d 191, 195- 96. The " furnished for
regular use" exclusion applies to the liability coverage portion
of the policy as well, so Higgins not
was liability insured
under the express terms of the policy. Therefore, statutory UM
coverage is not available. Accordingly, Higgins' bad faith
claim also fails because there can be no such claim when a valid
coverage exclusion is asserted. See Reed v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 2003- 0107 ( La. 10/ 21/ 03), 857 So. 2d 1012, 1021

The statutory penalties are inappropriate when the insurer has
a reasonable basis to defend the claim and acts in good - faith
reliance on that defense.").

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CW 0179
PAGE 2 OF 2

For these reasons, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
by
The Plaintiff, Charles Higgins, against
Company. claims of

Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, are

dismissed with prejudice.

VGW
JMG
JMM
MRT

Chutz, J., dissents.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

D& PtTt
X J-aeL4
CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT