Jason Green VS State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Carla M. Fontenot and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 0094 JASON GREEN VERSUS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CARLA M FONTENOT UNITED STATES FIDELITY C01JPANY V J2i AND GUARANTY COMPANY Judgment Rendered November Appealed 2 2007 from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 533 962 Honorable Wilson Fields Vincent J DeSalvo Baton Rouge LA Judge Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant Jason Green Howard B Kaplan Metairie LA Attorney for Defendant Appellee United States Guaranty Fidelity Co Julie N Attorney for Baton Defendant Degeneres Rouge LA Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co and Carla M Fontenot BEFORE CARTER C J PETTIGREW AND WELCH JJ WELCH J In this action plaintiff Jason Green defendant G appeals a summary 25 2005 the plaintiff was operating left a defendants s on claims UM against the vehicle driven 2006 that it was entitled After a Cintas plaintiff filed a was the plaintiff has appealed appeal the by his East Baton Carla M to filed G Insurance and USF G his UM coverage to the Cintas a motion for summary be dismissed from the had Corporation on damages naming Automobile insurer liability s for by the plaintiff USF against signed vehicle owned petition Farm Mutual State hearing the trial UM claims a the defendant operated by Carla Fontenot 25 ruling On that directly into the path of the plaintiff s vehicle resulting Carla Fontenot its named insured court turn August contending plaintiffs G USF Corporate Boulevard in liability insurer which allegedly provided s Corporation coverage on vehicle owned and State Farm Company On a On June 30 2005 the accident employer in favor of the judgment granted FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY February Fontenot made as the We affirm Rouge Parish when an vehicle accident Fidelity and Guaranty Company employer Cintas Corporation eastbound in motor a plaintiff s uninsured underinsured motorist I On ansmg out of damages United States dismissed the USF for USF G validly executed granted court A plaintiff s a judgment lawsuit because rejection of UM the motion and dismissed the judgment in conformity with November 10 2006 and it is from this the trial judgment that 1 plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in finding that UM final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal after an express determination that there was no just reason for delay See La C C P art 1915 B However as the judgment dismissed USF G from this suit certification of See La C C P art as final under La C C P art 1915 B was unnecessary the The November 10 2006 judgment judgment 1 La 1915 A 0716 pp 10 11 was designated C C P art 1911 Motorola Inc La App 1st Cir 4 30 03 867 v 2d So 2 as a Associated 715 721 Indemnity Corporation 2002 was coverage did initial not placed the X an on on the line the line and alleged initials placed answers to judgment whether summary novo under the to summary 17 La judgment interrogatories and admissions a La 675 of law to as Corp 934 So 2d 708 12 22 05 together with material fact and that La C C P MSOF appropriate file pleadings art 966 B courts 720 mover is determining review evidence de determination of whether s Exxon v In any 2004 0988 p Corp writ denied 2006 1669 La coverage is a an dispute insurance that can policy matter of law as a be resolved properly provides or within the framework v App 1st Cir 345 writ denied 96 1292 La 6 28 96 So 2d 1126 of the policy policy supporting 673 2d So 347 Summary judgment declaring a may not be rendered unless there is when applied to the undisputed material Co p 3 Johnson 5 10 96 Allstate Ins 95 1953 motion for summary judgment insurance lack of coverage no reasonable facts shown 93 1480 La 11 4 94 634 So 2d 1180 under an interpretation by the evidence the motion under which coverage could be afforded Select Properties Ltd B issue on if the 938 So 2d 78 precludes a genuine matter The issue of whether of no criteria that govern the trial court is App 1st Cir 10 6 06 as judgment should be granted only judgment is appropriate appellate same and because X Law affidavits show that there is entitled his initials to the left of the LAW AND DISCUSSION A motion for summary depositions but instead unidentifiable scribble were an Summary Judgment of the insured representative providing for the rejection of UM coverage II A since the authorized validly rejected Reynolds v 1183 Rejection of UMCoverage In all automobile vehicles registered liability insurance policies delivered in this in this state Louisiana law 3 requires state covering UM coverage in the same amount as the either policy bodily injury liability rejects selects lower limits coverage La R S 22 coverage selection of economic 1 680 his the creates rebuttable a selected 22 R S La policy The 1 680 object of or insurance 11 29 06 thus the 950 So 2d 544 exceptions coverage in an Duncan 547 insurance are policy to must Ins Co equal to bodily injury 2006 0363 p 4 by La exclusion from to be covered interpreted strictly Any be is not construed and statute be clear and unmistakable and the insurer bears the burden of proving any insured named in the coverage coverage liberally The UM to coverage form signed Id tortfeasor who is U S A A v and full recovery for automobile provide a become part of knowingly rejected only coverage damages caused by or signed by the named insured properly completed that the insured UM insurance is to accident victims who suffer adequate liability A selected economic only prescribed by form on a conclusively presumed to ii a presumption lower limit a shall be selects economic or only for that purpose be and any insured named in the rejection selection of lower limits Such coverage shall be made only legal representative i a the commissioner of insurance or unless coverage or coverage policy rejected selected lower limits in writing the Duncan 2006 0363 at pp 4 5 950 So 2d at 547 to According summary Kevin a judgment Ryan on losses was Cintas an accident caused Representative was the form G in support of its motion for policy at issue On the OM selection form 5 placed by option hand written initials Corporation by USF UM selection form for the I understand that I will not be arising from Illegible a June 30 2004 circle around it Coverage the evidence submitted were typed was an to 4 I do not want the left of the X Kevin Ryan UM UM coverage for was motorist just above Named Insured it by with X uninsuredunderinsured into the blank for signed by executed hand written compensated through by placed which reads a was dated the or 5 Legal 6 30 04 and D002A00280 numbers policy D002A00283 in the blank above According to Kevin Ryan stated that on Corporation rejected initials the Cintas The initialed the X he for was UM coverage to the Director Kevin the reject next to that he that X were expressly by placing UM coverage the X Ryan also of the Cintas legal representative intended 20 the Director of Administration as rejecting July on on his behalf of his initials plaintiff contends the rejection of UM coverage signed by Kevin Ryan In v the was specifically indicate not properly unmistakable waiver of UM coverage clear a on the form G s was motion for summary judgment should have been support of this contention the plaintiff cites this American National App 1st Cir invalid because it was Corporation itself and therefore USF Dyess he Corporation and that the initials to denied June 30 2004 he by inscribing his initials beside behalf of the Cintas on 2004 responsible was UM coverage next to on Ryan executed obtaining insurance for Cintas Corporation June 30 who affidavit Corporation and of Administration for Cintas his duties included s and Policy Number G also submitted the affidavit of Kevin USF 2006 typed were D002A00282 D002A00281 6 25 04 Property 886 So 2d 448 and court Casualty Company decision in s 2003 1971 writ denied 2004 1858 La 10 29 04 La 885 So 2d 592 In Dyess the plaintiffs UM insurer as the result of signed the summary at seeking a to recover motor UM form judgment on Mr and Ms damages for bodily injuries sustained by vehicle accident which occurred two The the issue whether the insurer the policy s imputed liability limits days after and the insurer filed plaintiffs the time of the accident The trial of the plaintiffs and Dyess filed suit against their alleged court granted s 5 Dyess Ms Dyess motions for policy provided UM benefits the summary judgment in favor UM coverage to the insurer The insurer cross Ms s policy appealed contending in limits equal that the trial to court erred as a This insufficient mandating valid purpose of selection that is by the parties marked the X on and dated signed a it the UM form blank UM form she did not know who put as a she did not X an put form that she would not initials for selection and that unsure a have affixed In Ms to discuss the had not taken an matter affirmative the purported UM rejection also the time she with her husband was 886 So 2d at to the evidence or someone stating the form Dyess placing an signed not made a else that she and that deposition X the form on the use she of was decision because she Thus because the named insured clearly and unmistakably reject act to Dyess while instructive an at not the 10 because the form directed the whether she wanted UM coverage and had wanted case X an on serves or affidavit X an the form on an of UM a according Dyess a provide 2003 1971 at p Dyess legally by the insured mark made testimony she testified that she specifically recalled making the initials Dyess submitted Ms was rejection valid a and act unclear whether Ms was form and concluded that court this court noted that this decision by the use of representative affix initials affirmative an Emphasis added reaching submitted his susceptible of being identified representative In or coverage signed the is insufficient to constitute X an Requiring the insured coverage 454 rejection ofUM with the trial agreed court designation with only his that the finding rather than the initials of the person who X an of law in matter UM coverage invalid is factually distinguishable from this case In this although Kevin Ryan the legal representative of the named insured placed X with a placed his circle around it initials established that he that he to to reject coverage he The affidavit of Kevin Ryan further the left of the X personally placed personally placed intended by his selection of rejection of UM the his initials UM coverage on X next to on the line the X behalf of the Cintas 6 to reject UM coverage and that he Corporation specifically Based upon USF G that the met its our de novo burden of review of the record in this proving there we find that material fact genuine issues of legal representative of the Cintas Corporation the named insured under the policy clearly and unmistakably rejected placing were no matter an X and his initials to the left of the X commissioner of insurance and that this judgment was appropriate as a matter III For the above and the trial court granting rejection reasons valid of prescribed by the Therefore summary the November 10 judgment in favor of USF uninsuredunderinsured motorist affirmed All of this was the form act of law plaintiff s costs on by the affinnative CONCLUSION foregoing summary UM coverage appeal are claims assessed Green AFFIRMED 7 to against the 2006 G and USF judgment of dismissing G is plaintiff appellant the hereby Jason
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
