Kenneth K. Krygier VS Karen M. Vidrine, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0929 KENNETH K KRYGIER VERSUS KAREN M VIDRINE ROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY fD LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY DATE OF JUDGMENT OCT 2 9 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 2007 12327 DIVISION A PARISH OF ST TAMMANY STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE RAYMOND S CHILDRESS JUDGE Brent P Frederick Michael T Beckers Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Kenneth K Krygier Kenneth H Hooks III M Sean Reid Baton Rouge Louisiana David J Schexnaydre Mary B Lord Mandeville Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND KLINE JJ Disposition AFFIRMED 1 The Honorable William F Kline Jr is serving pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court Kuhn J Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company Progressive uninsuredunderinsured motorist an insurer appeals a trial court judgment UM that awarded attorney fees costs and interest to plaintiff Kenneth K Krygier 2 We affirm In Krygier v Vidrine 10121 La App 1st Cir 9 unpublished 10 10 opinion this court affirmed a summary judgment that awarded penalties to Krygier for Progressive failure to make a timely tender of its policy limits s following an October 11 2006 motor vehicle accident in which Krygier sustained serious injuries In that appeal Progressive urged that Krygier had not met his burden of proving the underinsured status of defendant tortfeasor Karen M Vidrine before February 11 2009 and that once Vidrine underinsured status s was established Progressive had timely tendered its policy limits on March 12 2009 We rejected these claims concluding that reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion i that Progressive acted arbitrarily capriciously or e without probably cause in not tendering its policy limits within thirty days of September 26 2008 Id at p 13 We concluded that prior to that date Progressive had received proof of the available liability coverage and had been 2 The January 12 2010 judgment cast Progressive for a total of 52 which amount 04 789 consists of the following itemized awards a 15 in prejudgment interest representing 22 608 the interest on Progressive policy limits from the date Krygier filed suit to the date that s Progressive tendered its policy limits b 180 in interest on a prior award of penalties 82 pursuant to La R 22 formerly La R 22 c 36 in attorney fees and d S 1892 S 658 000 s 1000 in costs 3 Progressive acknowledges its February 11 2009 receipt of an Affidavit of No Other Insurance executed by Vidrine wherein she attested to the fact that she had no other liability insurance in effect on the date of the accident other than a policy issued by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company that provided coverage for the vehicle she was operating at the time of the accident 2 furnished Krygier employment records and medical records establishing losses s greater than 130 the combined limits of the available liability coverage and 000 s Progressive UM coverage Id at pp 11 12 In the present appeal Progressive asserts that the trial court improperly assessed interest attorney fees and court costs against it claiming once again s that it timely tendered its policy limits to Krygier Progressive urges again that Krygier did not meet his burden of proof and that sufficient admissible proof of s Vidrine insured status was not established until February 11 2009 and Progressive timely tendered policy limits to Krygier within 30 days of knowledge of Vidrine insured status s For the detailed reasons set forth in our previous opinion we find no merit in the arguments that Progressive merely reiterates in this appeal Otherwise we find no error in the trial court judgment and find it is supported by the record s Appeal costs are assessed against Progressive AFFIRMED 3
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.
