Erica Batiste, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Hiram Batiste, Ladasha Batiste, Alicia Batiste, and Jamarious Batiste, and Audrey Taylor on Behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor VS Monica Dunn, Matthew Bazile, Allstate Insurance Company and Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 1812 ERICA BATISTE INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR nCHILDREN HIRAM BATISTE LADASHA BATISTE ALICIA BATISTE AND ll JAMARIOUS BATISTE AND AUDREY TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF LACEY TAYLOR AND RANSOM TAYLOR VERSUS MONICA DUNN MATTHEW BAZILE ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered JUN 10 2011 On Appeal from the Twenty Judicial District Court First In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No 2009002780 Honorable M Douglas Hughes Judge Presiding EMMMEMM3 Erik M Tadda Counsel for PlaintiffsAppellants Jeremy S Hader Baton Rouge Louisiana Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor Byron A Richie Shreveport Louisiana Counsel for DefendantAppellee Imperial Fire Casualty Insurance Company B WHIPPLE McIJONALD AND McCLENDON JJ MCCLENDON J In this appeal the plaintiffs challenge a trial court judgment in favor of the insurer determining that an automobile liability insurance policy issued to the owner of the vehicle involved in an accident did not afford uninsuredunderinsured motorist UM coverage to guest passengers injured in the accident We affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 24 2008 Hiram Batiste Ladasha Batiste Alicia Batiste Jamarious Batiste Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor were guest passengers in a vehicle owned and operated by Erica Batiste when they were involved in an automobile accident in Tangipahoa Parish with a vehicle driven by Matthew Bazile and owned by his mother Monica Dunn Ms Batiste individually and on behalf of her minor children Hiram Batiste Ladasha Batiste Alicia Batiste and Jamarious Batiste and Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor filed a petition for damages on August 10 2009 against Ms Dunn Ms s Bazile Ms Dunn automobile liability insurer Allstate Insurance Company s Allstate and Ms Batiste automobile liability insurer Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company Imperial Imperial filed an answer admitting that it issued an automobile liability insurance policy to Ms Batiste which also included UM coverage benefits On February 17 2010 following the compromise and settlement of all matters between the plaintiffs and Ms Dunn Mr Bazile and Allstate a Joint Motion and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed and signed by the trial court Thereafter the remaining defendant Imperial filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that its policy did not afford UM insurance coverage in connection with the automobile accident at issue to Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor Imperial asserted that Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor who were guest passengers in the vehicle insured by Imperial were not insured persons under the terms of the policy for purposes of UM coverage In support of its motion Imperial submitted its policy 2 of insurance as well as interrogatories and answers demonstrating that neither Lacey Taylor nor Ransom Taylor were related by blood adoption or marriage to Ms Batiste Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor opposed the motion arguing that they would be considered insureds under the liability portion of the policy and therefore were insured persons for purposes of UM coverage Following a hearing on April 12 2010 the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Imperial Judgment was signed on April 27 2010 in favor of Imperial finding that Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor were not insured for UM benefits under the policy issued by Imperial and therefore were not entitled to recover UM coverage from Imperial so that their claims against Imperial were dismissed with prejudice The trial court judgment further recognized that its ruling did not affect the UM insurance coverage as it related to the other remaining plaintiffs This appeal by Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor plaintiffs followed DISCUSSION Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a motion for summary 99 2d judgment de novo Magnon v Collins 982822 p 5 La 7 739 So 191 195 Lambert v Lavigne 041961 p 3 La 1 Cir 9 923 App 05 23 2d So 704 706 writ denied 05 2283 La 3 925 So 515 06 10 2d appellate court thus asks the same questions as does the trial court An in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law LSAC art 9666 Lambert 041961 at p 3 923 So at P C 2d 706 1 With regard to Imperial motion to supplement the record with the rulings of the fourth circuit s and the supreme court in the matter entitled 5harone Knight et al v Navarro A Edwards et al 101474 La 4 Cir 1 writ denied 11 0245 La 3 58 So 479 said App 11 7 11 4 2d It is inappropriate to supplement the record with matters not t considered by the trial court See Diamond B Constr Co Inc v Louisiana Dep of Transp and Dev 00 1583 p 17 La 1 Cir 12 780 So 439 449 writ denied App 00 22 2d motion is hereby denied 01 0246 La 4 790 So 633 However see Rule 2 12 of the Uniform Rules of the 01 20 2d 1 6 Louisiana Courts of Appeal 3 An insurance policy is a conventional obligation that constitutes the law between the insured and insurer and the agreement governs the nature of their relationship LSAC art 1983 Lambert 041961 at pp 34 923 So at C 2d 706 The goal of judicial interpretation of a policy wording is to determine the s common intent of the contracting parties See LSAC art 2045 Cadwallader C v Allstate Ins Co 021637 p 3 La 6 848 So 577 580 Grace v 03 27 2d Crespo 070397 p 5 La 1 Cir 9 970 So 1007 1012 writ App 07 19 2d denied 072010 La 1217107 969 So 636 Absent a conflict with statutory 2d provisions or public policy insurers like other individuals are entitled to limit their liability and to impose and enforce reasonable conditions upon the policy obligations they contractually assume Thus if the policy wording at issue is clear and unambiguously expresses the parties intent the insurance contract must be enforced as written Magnon 982822 at p 7 739 So at 19697 2d Lambert 041961 at p 4 923 So at 706 Further an insurance contract or 2d policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable manner under the guise of contractual interpretation to enlarge or restrict the applicable provisions beyond what is reasonably understood from unambiguous terms The rules of construction simply do not authorize a manipulation or perversion of the s contract language to create an ambiguity where none exists Cadwallader 021637 at p 3 848 So at 580 Grace 070397 at p 6 970 2d 2d So at 1012 Under Louisiana UM statute automobile liability insurance must provide s UM motorist coverage equal to the liability provided for bodily injury unless UM coverage has been validly rejected or lower UM limits have been selected LSAR 22 S 1295 See The purpose of the UM statute is to protect the insured against the generalized risk of damages at the hands of uninsured motorists Howell v Balboa Ins Co 564 So 298 301 02 La 1990 2d Although s Louisiana public policy strongly favors UM coverage and a liberal construction of Z Renumbered from LSA R 22 by Acts 2008 No 415 S 680 Redesignated from LSAR 22 by Acts 2003 No 456 3 S 1406 D 2 1 eff Jan 1 2009 the UM statute it is wellsettled that a person who does not qualify as a liability insured under a policy of insurance is not entitled to UM coverage under the policy Magnon 982822 at p 5 739 So at 195 96 Lambert 041961 at 2d p 4 923 So at 706 In Howell the supreme court reasoned that because 2d UM insurance follows the person rather than the vehicle a court must determine whether a plaintiff is an insured for liability purposes in order to determine whether he is entitled to UM coverage Howell 564 So at 301 2d In other words a claimant must be an insured under the policy auto liability coverage s to be entitled to UM coverage Magnon 982822 at p 6 739 So at 196 2d Lambert 041961 at p 4 923 So at 706 2d Fire See also Filipski v Imperial Cas Ins Co 091013 p 5 La 12 25 So 742 745 09 1 3d With these principles in mind we examine the applicable policy provisions Part C of the Imperial insurance policy sets forth UM coverage and defines an insured person or insured persons as 1 you or a person residing in the same household as you and related to you by blood marriage or adoption including a ward stepchild or foster child and 2 Any person who is entitled to recover damages covered by this Part C because of bodily injury sustained by a person described in 1 above You is defined in the policy as the person shown as the named insured on the Declarations Page and that person spouse if residing in the s same household and holding a valid driver license Erica Batiste is the only s named insured on the declarations page and plaintiffs are not related to Ms Batiste Thus under its clear terms unlike some policies that include occupants within the definition of insured persons under the UM provisions of the insurance policy the policy herein does not so provide However plaintiffs argue that this language violates Louisiana UM s statute by failing to provide UM coverage for all persons classified as a liability insured person and violates public policy Plaintiffs maintain that they fit 3 Our supreme court has noted that it is not the public policy of this state to protect and provide compensation to injured persons at all times and indicated that there is no public policy against R within the definition of insured persons under the liability portion of Imperial s policy and therefore must be considered insured persons under the UM portion of the policy as well They contend that Imperial is attempting to circumvent the UM statute by defining an insured person for the purposes of UM coverage differently than an insured person for purposes of liability coverage As previously stated it is wellsettled that UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured not the vehicle Howell 564 So at 301 2d Any determination of whether a plaintiff is entitled to UM benefits must follow a determination that the plaintiff is an insured for purposes of auto liability insurance coverage Magnon 982822 at P 6 739 So at 196 Thus the 2d argument that someone is insured for UM coverage simply because they occupy an insured vehicle and sustained injury due to an uninsured motorist is clearly contrary to wellestablished law Part A of the Imperial policy sets forth the provisions for liability coverage Under Part A insured person or insured persons is defined as 1 you or a relative with respect to an accident arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a covered vehicle 2 any person with respect to an accident arising out of that person use of s a covered vehicle with the express or implied permission of you 3 You or a relative with respect to an accident arising out of the maintenance or use of a non owned vehicle with the express or implied permission of the owner of the vehicle and 4 any Additional Interests Insured designated by you in your application or by a change request agreed to by us with respect to liability for an accident arising out of the use of a covered vehicle or non owned vehicle by a person described in 1 2 or 3 above Plaintiffs argue that they were using the vehicle as passengers with the express permission of the named insured as defined in the policy Thus they contend they were insured persons under the second definition in Part A The petition for damages filed in this matter provided in pertinent part Petitioner Erica Batiste was operating and Hiram Batiste Ladasha Batiste Alicia Batiste Jamarious Batiste Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor were riding as guest passengers in Erica Batiste s excluding guest passenger UM coverage when the guest passengers are not insureds Taylor v Rowell 98 2865 La 5 736 So 812 99 18 2d N See 2000 Dodge Caravan which was headed northbound on 7 Street in Ponchatoula Louisiana in Tangipahoa Parish Defendant Matthew Bazile vehicle a 2001 Ford Explorer owned by Monica s Dunn and being operated with permission by Defendant was traveling westbound on West Hickory Street pulled out into s Petitioner lane of traffic from the side street and therefore caused a collision to occur between the two vehicles By the plain terms of the insuring agreement we cannot find that the accident arose out of plaintiffs use of the vehicle To find that plaintiffs were using the vehicle simply because they were riding as guest passengers would require a strained interpretation inconsistent with the meaning of the word and beyond what could have been contemplated by the parties Further even were we to assume that plaintiffs were using Ms Batiste vehicle the accident at s issue did not arise out of said use The use provision is designed to limit coverage to liability resulting from conduct of the insured which constitutes both a use of the vehicle and a legal cause of the injury See Carter v City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge 423 So 1080 1084 La 1982 2d Kessler v Amica Mut Ins Co 573 So 476 478 La 1991 Clearly the 2d act of riding in the insured vehicle did not cause or contribute to the accident in this case The plain unambiguous wording of the policy simply cannot be manipulated to include plaintiffs interpretation Accordingly plaintiffs are not insured persons under the liability portion of Imperial insurance policy and s thus are not entitled to UM coverage under the statute As a result Imperial was entitled as a matter of law to summary judgment finding that its policy did not provide UM coverage to plaintiffs under the facts presented herein CONCLUSION For these reasons the April 27 2010 judgment of the trial court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs Audrey Taylor on behalf of Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AFFIRMED 7 RECORD DENIED JUDGMENT ERICA BATISTE INDIVIDUALLY STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN HIRAM BATISTE LADASHA BATISTE ALICIA BATISTE AND JAMARIOUS BATISTE AND COURT OF APPEAL AUDREY TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF LACEY TAYLOR AND RANSOM VERSUS FIRST CIRCUIT MONICA DUNN MATTHEW BAZILE ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY NUMBER 2010 CA 1812 INSURANCE COMPANY l WHIPPLE J dissenting Louisiana Revised Statute 22 governs the issuance of UM coverage 1295 and mandates in pertinent part as follows i a 1 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 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 Thus under Louisiana UM statute LSAR 22 automobile liability s S 1295 insurance must provide UM motorist coverage equal to the liability limits provided for bodily injury unless UM coverage has been validly rejected or lower UM limits have been selected Lambert v Lavigne 20041961 La App 1s Cir 05 23 9 923 So 2d 704 706 writ denied 2005 2283 La 3 925 So 2d 06 10 5 51 1 also agree that it is well settled that a person who does not qualify as a liability insured under a policy of insurance is not entitled to UM coverage under the policy inasmuch as a claimant must be an insured under the policy s automobile liability coverage to be entitle to UM coverage Cf Lambert 923 So 2d at 706707 wherein a guest passenger was not entitled to UM coverage under the UM provisions of the driver father umbrella policy because he did not meet ss the narrowly drawn definition of an insured for purposes of UM coverage under the umbrella policy As the Supreme Court has recognized uninsured motorist coverage embodies a strong public policy in this state Taylor v Rowell 982865 La 99 18 5 736 So 2d 812 816 Moreover the Court reiterated its earlier pronouncement in Roger v Estate of Moulton 513 So 2d 1126 1130 La 1987 wherein the Court observed The object of the statute is to promote recovery of damages for innocent automobile accident victims by making UM coverage available for their benefit as primary protection when the tortfeasor is without insurance and as additional or excess coverage when he is inadequately insured To carry out this objective of providing reparation for those injured through no fault of their own this Court has held that the statute is to be liberally construed Thus the requirement that there be UM coverage is an implied amendment of any automobile liability policy even one which does not expressly address the subject matter as UM coverage will be read into the policy unless validly rejected Citations omitted As the majority correctly notes a determination of whether UM coverage is available turns on whether the claimant is an insured under the policy liability s coverage Here Part A of the Imperial policy sets forth the provision for liability coverage and specifically defines an insured person in pertinent part as any person with respect to an accident arising out of that person use of a covered s vehicle with the express or implied permission of you Thus in my view Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor meet the definition of insured persons under the terms of the Imperial policy Further although the Supreme Court did observe that at least in the context of a self insured rental car agency there is no public policy against excluding guest passenger UM coverage when the guest passengers are not insureds see Taylor 736 So 2d at 818 such is not the case herein where the claimants meet the definition of insureds under the liability provisions of the policy at issue Thus pretermitting the threshhold issue of whether the s majority interpretation of the policy renders it contra bonos mores I respectfully dissent from the majority determination through a strained interpretation of the policy s that Lacey Taylor and Ransom Taylor are not insured persons reasons I respectfully dissent For these

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.