Michael Broussard v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-15

MICHAEL BROUSSARD

VERSUS

LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

************

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20100399
HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and J. David
Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward O. Taulbee, IV
Max Michael Menard
P.O. Box 2038
Lafayette, LA 70502
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant:
Farm Bureaus Casualty Insurance Company

Kevin P. Tauzin
Yul D. Lorio
1228 Camellia Blvd., Suite A
Lafayette, LA 70508
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee:
Michael Broussard

PAINTER, Judge

Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

(Farm Bureau), appeals the trial court’s judgment granting Plaintiff, Michael

Broussard, a summary judgment finding coverage under the Farm Bureau

insurance policy. Finding that Plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter

of law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS

The facts herein are not at issue. On March 31, 2009, Michael

Broussard was operating a 1996 Ford Mustang belonging to Brandy

Oppenheimer. Broussard and Oppenheimer lived together and had a child

together but were not married. Broussard had Oppenheimer’s permission to

drive her car. While driving on South College Road in Lafayette, Louisiana,

Broussard was hit from behind by the pickup truck driven by Charles Renot.

Renot was uninsured. Oppenheimer maintained uninsured motorist

insurance on her vehicle and her insurer, GEICO Indemnity Insurance

Company, tendered its $10,000.00 policy limits to Broussard.

At the time of the accident, Broussard owned a 2006 Hummer which

was insured by Farm Bureau and had uninsured motorist coverage in the

amount of $10,000.00 per person and medical payments in the amount of

$5,000.00. Broussard made a demand for payment under Farm Bureau’s

uninsured motorist coverage which Farm Bureau denied.

On January 19, 2010, Broussard brought suit against Farm Bureau

seeking payment under the uninsured motorist coverage on his 2006

Hummer. Farm Bureau answered Broussard’s petition asserting that the

policy did not cover the accident in that Broussard was operating a vehicle

that was not listed in the policy. Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary
1

judgment on the issue of coverage. Broussard filed a cross motion for

summary judgment. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion finding that

Broussard was entitled to recover under the Farm Bureau UM coverage.

Farm Bureau appeals.

DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment

Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo,
using the same criteria that govern the district court’s
consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate.
Schroeder v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State
University, 591 So.2d 342, 345 (La.1991). A court must grant a
motion for summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(B). The summary judgment
procedure, which is designed to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of civil actions, is now favored in
our law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). The summary judgment
procedure is also an appropriate procedure for determining
certain insurance coverage issues. See, e.g., Peterson v.
Schimek, 98-1712 (La.3/2/99), 729 So.2d 1024.

Sensebe v. Canal Indem. Co., 10-0703, p. 5 (La. 1/28/11), 58 So.3d 441,

445.

Coverage

The trial court herein found in its written reasons for judgment that to

exclude coverage would allow Farm Bureau to write a policy in derogation

of La.R.S. 22:1295.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1295(1) provides in pertinent part that:

(c) If the insured has any limits of uninsured motorist
coverage in a policy of automobile liability insurance, in
accordance with the terms of Subparagraph (1)(a) of this
Section, then such limits of liability shall not be increased
because of multiple motor vehicles covered under such policy
of insurance, and such limits of uninsured motorist coverage
shall not be increased when the insured has insurance available
to him under more than one uninsured motorist coverage
2

provision or policy; however, with respect to other insurance
available, the policy of insurance or endorsement shall provide
the following with respect to bodily injury to an injured party
while occupying an automobile not owned by said injured
party, resident spouse, or resident relative, and the following
priorities of recovery under uninsured motorist coverage shall
apply:

(i) The uninsured motorist coverage on the vehicle in
which the injured party was an occupant is primary.

(ii) Should that primary uninsured motorist coverage be
exhausted due to the extent of damages, then the injured
occupant may recover as excess from other uninsured motorist
coverage available to him. In no instance shall more than one
coverage from more than one uninsured motorist policy be
available as excess over and above the primary coverage
available to the injured occupant.

Farm Bureau cites the following policy language as excluding

coverage for Broussard’s accident:

d. This insuring policy does not apply: (1) To any automobile
owned by or furnished for the regular use to either the named
insured or a member of the same household.

and;

This policy does not apply: (g) Under division 1 of coverage to
bodily injury to the insured, his spouse or members of
household sustained while in or entering into or alighting from
an automobile owned by the insured, his spouse, or members of
the household except the one described in the declarations.

We agree, however, with the trial court that the policy language

cannot change the requirements of the statute. See Salvaggio v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 08-585 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08); 997 So.2d 845.1 The Farm Bureau

policy seeks to exclude UM coverage for injuries sustained in a vehicle

owned by someone in the same household as the insured. The law allows for

an exclusion pertaining to a spouse or relative’s policies. It cannot be

interpreted to apply to the situation herein. “[T]he anti-stacking statute is not

1
While this case was decided on a prior version of the statute, it continues to stand for the proposition that
policy language cannot change the requirements of statute.
3

applicable when separate legal persons have entered into separate contracts

with an insurer to provide coverage that does not include the other

contracting person as an insured.” Hardy v. Augustine, 10-384, pp. 3-4

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/11), 54 So.3d. 1246 (citing Boullt v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 99-942 (La. 10/10/99), 752 So.2d 739). Therefore, the Farm

Bureau policy is more restrictive than the law allows and cannot be given

effect.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of

this appeal are assessed to Defendant.

AFFIRMED.

4