Cited by

Co., ] Court noted, “The courts of this state have recognized, both impliedly and explicitly, that this coverage cannot be qualified by a requirement of relationship with an insured vehicle.” Id.(citations omitted).

See Bernard , 11-2377 at p. 6, 111 So.3d at 1000 ; see also Howell v. Balboa Insurance Company , , 301-02 (La.

the supreme court stated: “We expressly hold that UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and that any provision of UM coverage purporting to limit insured status to instances involving a relationship to an insured vehicle contravenes LSA- R.S.

the supreme court stated: “We expressly hold that UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and that any provision of UM coverage purporting, to limit insured status to instances involving a relationship to an insured vehicle contravenes LSA-R.S.

-02 (La.1990) (emphasis added).

Co., which involved a policy listing an individual, as opposed to a corporation or other entity, as the named insured.

Co., -302 (La.1990), we reasoned that because UM insurance follows the person rather than the vehicle, |sthe court must determine whether a plaintiff is an insured for liability purposes in order to determine whether he is entitled to UM coverage: We expressly hold that UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured

Co., -302 (La.1990), "UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and ...

and in turn, the plaintiff contends that summary judgment was inappropriate.

Co., the Magnon court observed that UM coverage attached to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and the provisions of UM coverage purporting to limit insured status to situations which involved a connection to an insured vehicle violated the UM law.

Co., that any person who is insured under a UM/ UIM policy enjoys coverage simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured or underinsured motorist.

She contends that, although she may not qualify as an insured under the UM |3portion of the policy, she does qualify as an insured under the liability portion of the policy and is, therefore

Co., 90-0339 (La.6/29/90); .

Co., -02 (La.1990) (all noting that the plaintiff must be an "insured" under the policy to be entitled to UM coverage).

State Farm and LIGA further contend that at the instant Magnon became an insured by moving property to a covered auto, Magnon became entitled to UM coverage while later driving the car because UM coverage attaches to the person.

for the proposition that the "regularly used" exclusionary clause in the instant matter is in violation of Louisiana's public policy in favor of UM insurance.

Co., in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held: [A]ny person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle liability policy which includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured/underinsured motorist.

Co., and held that because the employee was covered under the liability provisions of the policy while in the course and scope of his employment, he was necessarily covered to the same extent by the uninsured motorist provisions.

Co., in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held: [A]ny person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle liability policy which includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured/underinsured motorist.

Finally, defendant points out that Howell v. Balboa, supra [ ], relied on by plaintiffs, was not addressing this particular provision, but concerned another subsection, La.R.S.

Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court stated the following regarding persons classified as "insured": We expressly hold that UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and that any provision of UM coverage purporting to limit insured status to instances involving a relationship to an ins

Co., she should not be barred from recovery where she was injured by an underinsured motorist, namely her husband, and where she had paid full premiums for $50,000 of UM protection.

After thoroughly discussing the matter with both counsel during argument here, it all depends on whether or not the wordage in Howell versus Balboa Insurance Company cited at mandates a ruling that it is contra to public policy for this insurance policy to be limited to those areas which it is limited to.

Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the courts of this State have recognized that UM coverage cannot be qualified by a requirement of a relationship with an insured vehicle.

Co., ["any person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle liability policy which includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an uninsured/underinsured motorist"].

Co., in support of her argument on appeal.