Stephanie Leblanc, Et Ux. v. Samantha Lavergne

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-1112

STEPHANIE LEBLANC, ET UX.

VERSUS

SAMANTHA LAVERGNE, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20081985
HONORABLE GLENNON P. EVERETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of J. David Painter, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Kaliste J. Saloom III
Saloom & Saloom
Post Office Drawer 2999
Lafayette, LA 70502-2999
(337) 234-0111
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Stephanie LeBlanc
Randy LeBlanc

Randall Scott Iles
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3385
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 234-8800
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Stephanie LeBlanc
Randy LeBlanc

John William Penny, Jr.
Penny & Hardy
P. O. Box 2187
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 231-1955
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Allstate Ins. Co.

GREMILLION, Judge.

Stephanie and Randy LeBlanc, the plaintiffs-appellants, appeal the trial

court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee,

Allstate Insurance Company. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Stephanie was involved in a motor vehicle accident in April 2007 while

driving Randy’s (her husband) Chevrolet Tahoe, insured by a policy issued by

Allstate. The policy lists Randy P. LeBlanc as the named insured under the policy.

The uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage form (UM form)

provides five separate blanks to be executed by the named insured. Randy

LeBlanc’s name was typed at the bottom of the form by an Allstate agent. The

third paragraph of the form is initialed “SL” indicating “I select economic–only

UMBI coverage.” Stephanie signed the UM form.

In November 2010, the LeBlancs filed a motion for partial summary

judgment, claiming that there was no genuine issue that Allstate provided UM

coverage up to the policy limits of $50,000. Likewise, Allstate filed a motion for

partial summary judgment urging that there was no genuine issue that the policy

provided economic-only UM coverage and that standard UM coverage had been

rejected. Following a hearing on the motions, the trial court granted Allstate’s

partial motion for summary judgment and denied the LeBlanc’s motion for partial

summary judgment.1 The LeBlancs now appeal.

ISSUE

The LeBlancs assigns as error:

Under circumstances where a person other than the only named
insured executed an uninsured motorist selection of economic only
coverage, the trial court erred in granting Allstate Insurance
1
We note that the LeBlancs erroneously filed a supervisory writ with this court, which
was denied as an adequate remedy existed via appeal.

Company’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of
limited economic only uninsured motorist coverage and denying the
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on full uninsured motorist
benefits.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

We review the record de novo to determine if summary judgment was

properly granted and the mover is entitled to judgment in its favor. McClane S.,

Inc., v. Bridges, Sec., Dep’t of Rev. of State of La., 11-1141 (La. 1/24/12), __ So.3d

__. There are no facts in dispute in this case. The issue of law before us is whether

the spouse of the named insured of an insurance policy can reject full UM

coverage. There are no claims that the UM form is otherwise invalid in form or

lacking any essential elements.

Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1295 governs uninsured motorist coverage.

Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1295(1)(a)(i) states in part (emphasis added): “[T]he

coverage required under this Section is not applicable when any insured named in

the policy either rejects coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only

coverage, in the manner provided in Item (1)(a)(II) of this Section.” Louisiana

Revised Statute 22:1295(1)(a)(ii) provides in part that a UM rejection form “shall

be provided by the insurer and signed by the named insured or his legal

representative.” The LeBlancs argue that the only person who could validly

decline UM coverage was Randy as he “was the only person that was in contract

with Allstate Insurance Company.”

The Auto Policy Declarations page names Randy P. LeBlanc as the “Named

Insured.” Stephanie’s name appears under the “Driver(s) Listed” section that is

below the “Named Insured” section. The UM form provides (emphasis added),

“You may select one of the following UMBI Coverage options (initial only one

option).” The policy defines “You or Your” as follows: “the policyholder named

2

on the Policy Declarations and that policyholder’s resident spouse.” Thus, both

Stephanie and Randy are insured under the policy According to the plain terms of

the agreement, Stephanie, as Randy’s wife, could properly initial the UM form.

See La.Civ.Code art. 2046. This finding is congruent with the legislative intent

expressed in La.R.S. 22:1295.

Moreover, courts across the state have held that a spouse can validly reject

UM coverage. Under identical facts, the same result was reached in Tucker v.

Valentin, 01-755 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/26/01), 807 So.2d 292. The same result was

reached in Bel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 02-0360 (La.App. 1 Cir.

2/14/03), 845 So.2d 459, writ denied, 03-0734 (La. 5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1058. In

Bel, the plaintiffs argued that each insured named in the policy must sign a UM

rejection in order for the rejection to be valid. The appellate court found “the

wording of the statute clearly allows any insured named in the policy to reject UM

coverage.” Id. at 462 (emphasis added). The LeBlanc’s reliance on Duncan v.

U.S.A.A. Insurance Co., 06-363 (La. 11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544, is misplaced.

Duncan involved a defective form in which the policy number was not noted. The

LeBlancs also cites Shirey v. Barton, 05-1192 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/9/06), 938 So.2d

774. In Shirey, the appellate court rejected a UM form that was initialed by the

wife, but signed by the husband. The court found that (emphasis added):

[B]ased on the clear and explicit language of the contract, we find that
proper execution of the UM rejection form in accordance with La.R.S.
22:1406(D) requires that the signatory must also make the selection
rejecting UM coverage by marking his initials next to the appropriate
option. Applying the legal principles set forth above, we find the
intent of the contract is that the same person who signs the contract
must initial the option regarding UM coverage because the signature
binds the signatory to the terms of the contract, in this case, the
rejection of UM coverage.

Id. at 778-79.

3

The facts of Shirey are distinguishable from those before us. Stephanie both

initialed and signed the contract. We recognize the fact that Randy’s name was

typed on the first line under which was printed “Named Insured or Legal

Representative (Please Print).” Nevertheless, Stephanie provided her initials to the

selection of “economic-only UMBI coverage” and signed her name above the line

below which is printed “Signature of a Named Insured or Legal Representative.”

Stephanie, as the resident spouse of Randy, is a named insured and her initials and

signature on the UM form serve as a valid waiver of full UM coverage.

Accordingly, partial summary judgment was properly granted in Allstate’s favor.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs-appellants, Stephanie

and Randy LeBlanc’s partial motion for summary judgment and granting

defendant-appellee, Allstate’s partial motion for partial summary judgment is

affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Stephanie and Randy

LeBlanc.

AFFIRMED.

4