Dr. Steven M. Horton, Et Ux v. Anpac Louisiana Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-1104

DR. STEVEN M. HORTON, ET UX.

VERSUS

ANPAC LOUISIANA INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 86,372-A
HONORABLE ERIC ROGER HARRINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

DAVID KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, John E. Conery, and David Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edwin Dunahoe, Jr.
Dunahoe Law Firm
402 Second Street
Post Office Box 607
Natchitoches, LA 71458-0607
(318) 352-1999
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Dr. Steven M. Horton
Emilyn Horton

Paul M. Lafleur
Stafford, Stewart & Potter
Post Office Box 1711
Alexandria, LA 71309
(318) 487-4910
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company

SAVOIE, Judge.

In this insurance coverage dispute, the Plaintiffs seek review of a summary

judgment finding that the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provisions in

their policy did not provide coverage for an alleged reduction in market value of

the Plaintiffs’ vehicle resulting from an auto accident with an uninsured driver, and

dismissing their claims. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties submit that on June 6, 2013, an automobile accident occurred

wherein a 2013 Volvo owned by Dr. and Mrs. Horton was struck by an uninsured

motorist. The Hortons allege that, as a result of the accident, their vehicle sustained

physical damage, as well as a reduction in market value.

ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company (ANPAC) issued a “Louisiana

Automobile Policy” applicable to the Hortons’ vehicle. It is undisputed that

ANPAC paid for the physical damages to the Hortons’ vehicle sustained in the

accident pursuant to the collision coverage in the policy. ANPAC, however,

refused to provide coverage for the vehicle’s alleged reduction in market value.

Therefore, the Hortons filed suit against ANPAC, seeking damages for reduction in

market value under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions of the policy,

as well as penalties and attorney fees for failure to timely pay these damages.

The pertinent uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provisions of the

policy state as follows:

PART IV-UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST

COVERAGE J – UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

We will pay damages which an insured person is legally
entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured or
underinsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury caused by

accident and resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of the
uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle. We will also pay damages
which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the
owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of
property damage caused by accident and resulting from the
ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.

Uninsured Motorist Property Damage is subject to a $250
deductible per accident.

The liability of the owner or operator of the uninsured or
underinsured motor vehicle must result from the ownership,
maintenance, or use of the vehicle. We will pay under each coverage
only if a premium is shown for the respective coverage in the
Declarations …
(emphasis added).

The applicable declarations page shows a premium in the heading labeled

“UNINSURED & UNDERINSURED MOTORIST[,]” and the line directly underneath,

labeled “LIMIT PER PERSON/ACCIDENT[,]” states “250,000/500,000.”

In addition, the Hortons’ insurance application reflects a premium, and a

$250,000 per person, $500,000 per accident limit in the line labeled

“UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST BI[.]” The line labeled “UNINSURED

MOTORIST PD” is blank.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment seeking a

determination as to whether the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions

provide coverage for reduction in market value. The trial judge granted summary

judgment in favor of ANPAC and dismissed the Hortons’ claims, finding the

uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions did not provide property damage

coverage to the Hortons, and, therefore, did not cover the alleged reduction in

market value.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

We review summary judgments as follows:

2

Courts of appeal review summary judgments de novo applying
the same analysis as the trial court. Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of
La. State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991). Summary judgment is
governed by La.Code Civ.P. arts. 966 and 967. Article 966 provides
that while the burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment
rests with the mover, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at
trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary
judgment, the mover’s burden does not require him to negate all
essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action or defense, but
rather to point out that there is an absence of factual support for one or
more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action or defense.
Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support
sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary
burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact.
Hardy v. Bowie, 98–2821 (La. 9/8/99), 744 So.2d 606.

Berard v. Home State County Mut. Ins. Co., 11-1372, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/9/12),

89 So.3d 470, 471-472.

Interpretation of insurance policies is governed by the following principles:

An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should
be construed by using the general rules of interpretation of contracts
set forth in the Louisiana Civil Code. The judiciary’s role in
interpreting insurance contracts is to ascertain the common intent of
the parties to the contract.

Words and phrases used in an insurance policy are to be
construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning,
unless the words have acquired a technical meaning. An insurance
contract, however, should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or
strained manner under the guise of contractual interpretation to
enlarge or to restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably
contemplated by unambiguous terms or achieve an absurd conclusion.
...

Ambiguous policy provisions are generally construed against
the insurer and in favor of coverage. Under this rule of strict
construction, equivocal provisions seeking to narrow an insurer’s
obligation are strictly construed against the insurer. That strict
construction principle applies only if the ambiguous policy provision
is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations.
...

If the policy wording at issue is clear and unambiguously
expresses the parties’ intent, the insurance contract must be enforced
as written. Courts lack the authority to alter the terms of insurance
contracts under the guise of contractual interpretation when the

3

policy’s provisions are couched in unambiguous terms. The
determination of whether a contract is clear or ambiguous is a
question of law.

Cadwallader v. Allstate Ins. Co., 02-1637, pp. 3-4 (La. 6/27/03), 848 So.2d 577,

580 (citations omitted).

The Hortons argue on appeal that the uninsured/underinsured motorist

provisions of their policy entitle them to coverage for property damage, including

reduction of market value, resulting from an uninsured driver. They submit that

coverage for both bodily injury and property damage is automatically available

under the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions, provided that the insured

purchases uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, and that a separate premium

for uninsured/underinsured property damage coverage is not required. We disagree.

The uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions are provided in the policy

under “Part IV - Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist”. Thereunder, “Coverage J –

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage” provides that the insurer will pay for

damages for both bodily injury and property damage “to which an insured person

is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor

vehicle[,]” as those terms are defined in the policy. Coverage J then states that the

insurer “will pay under each coverage only if a premium is shown for the

respective coverage in the Declarations.”

Reference to “each” coverage indicates there is more than one coverage

available under Coverage J (i.e. coverage for damages for “bodily injury” and

“property damage” as described therein). Coverage J also clearly requires a

premium for each “respective” coverage available under Coverage J. Consequently,

the policy affords property damage coverage under “Coverage J – Uninsured/

Underinsured Motorist Coverage” only if the declarations page reflects a premium

4

for that coverage. Therefore, it is necessary to determine if the declarations page

reflects a premium for property damage coverage described under Coverage J.

The declarations page reflects a premium in the line labeled “uninsured and

underinsured motorist.” This line-heading is consistent with the title of Part IV and

Coverage J. However, the declarations page provides only one limit applicable to

this coverage, which is stated as “limit per person/accident[,]” in the amount of

“250,000/500,000”. No applicable deductible is stated.

The per person/accident limit described in the declarations is clearly the

limit for coverage for bodily injury provided under Coverage J. The section of Part

IV – Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist of the policy labeled “Limits of Liability”

states that “subject to the bodily injury liability limits for “each person[,]” the

bodily injury liability limit for “each occurrence” is the maximum we will pay as

damages for bodily injury to two or more persons in one accident.” The limit

applicable to uninsured/underinsured property damage coverage under Coverage J

is not “subject to” a per person limit, but rather would be stated as a per accident

limit.

Because the declarations page does not provide a limit for

uninsured/underinsured property damage coverage, the premium shown for

uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage does not include property damage

coverage. Therefore, the policy does not provide coverage for property damage,

including reduction in market value, under the uninsured/underinsured motorist

provisions.1

1
Since the policy does not provide property damage coverage under the
uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions, we do not consider whether the policy’s definition
of “property damage” includes a reduction of a vehicle’s market value.

5

While we believe the uninsured/underinsured provisions unambiguously do

not afford property damage coverage to the Hortons, we note that our finding is

consistent with the Hortons’ insurance application. While the application shows a

premium and $250,000/$500,000 limit for uninsured/underinsured bodily injury

coverage, the line for any applicable premium and limit for uninsured/underinsured

motorist property damage coverage is blank.

The Hortons suggest that, because the declarations page reflects a premium

in the line labeled “uninsured and uninsured motorist coverage[,]” they paid for

and are entitled to both property damage and bodily injury coverage described in

the uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions. However, this interpretation would

lead to the unreasonable result of uninsured/underinsured property damage

coverage that is not subject to a coverage limit, since the declarations page does

not provide a limit for that coverage.

In addition, interpreting the policy to subject both uninsured/underinsured

bodily injury and property damage coverage to the $250,000/$500,000 “per

person/accident” limit, which is the only limit provided for uninsured/underinsured

motorist coverage, would effectively reduce the uninsured/underinsured bodily

injury coverage by the amount of any property damage. This interpretation could

also lead to an unreasonable result. It would potentially render the

uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions insufficient under La.R.S.

22:1295(1)(a)(i) 2 by reducing the statutorily required limit for uninsured/

2
Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1295(1)(a)(i) provides in pertinent part:

No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the
ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued
for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle designed for use on
public highways and required to be registered in this state or as provided in this
Section unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in not less

6

underinsured coverage for “bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death

therefrom” to less than “the limits of bodily injury provided by the policy[,]”

without the requisite form selecting a lower limit.

CONCLUSION

The policy at issue affords property damage coverage under the

uninsured/underinsured motorist provisions only if a premium for that coverage is

shown in the declarations page. Because the declarations page does not show a

premium for uninsured/underinsured property damage coverage, the Hortons are

not entitled to coverage for property damage, including reduction in market value,

under the uninsured/underinsured motorist policy provisions.

DECREE

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

of this proceeding are assessed to Appellants, Dr. Steven M. Horton and Emilyn

Horton.

AFFIRMED.

than the limits of bodily injury liability provided by the policy, under provisions
filed with and approved by the commissioner of insurance, for the protection of
persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover nonpunitive
damages from owners or operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles
because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death resulting therefrom;
however, the 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.”

7