 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tedeton v. Simpson8/22/2001
of the policy and, therefore, afforded UM coverage in accordance with Howell, supra, and La. R.S. 22:1406. We disagree, however, and decline to follow Hobbs, supra.
The fourth circuit found that Mr. Hobbs was an insured for the purposes of liability coverage under the very narrow and specific definition of an employee while moving property to or from a covered auto or while using his own vehicle. While we agree that, under those specific circumstances Mr. Hobbs was an insured, we do not agree that he was, therefore, an insured for all purposes. The reasoning in Hobbs, supra, is also questioned in McKenzie and Johnson, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Insurance Law and Practice, ยง118 at pp. 38-39, wherein it is stated that the court failed to note that liability coverage was not generally extended to employees, but only under certain defined circumstances. We, therefore, choose not to make the leap from an insured for specific circumstances to an insured in all circumstances for purposes of UM coverage.
Finally, Ms. Tedeton urges that she is an insured under the endorsement to the policy, "Broadened Coverage - Garages," Section A(1)(c). We find that Ms. Tedeton's interpretation of the language of this section is also incorrect.
The "Broadened Coverage" endorsement applies to "personal injury " and "advertising injury" for which an employee is an insured. The definition of "personal injury," however, found in Section D, specifically excludes "bodily injury." It is clear from the facts that Ms. Tedeton suffered "bodily injury" and is, therefore, not an insured under this endorsement.
In summary, we find that the trial court was correct in its conclusion that Ms. Tedeton was not an insured for purposes of liability or UM coverage. We note, however, that she is not without recourse as she is entitled to Workers' Compensation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting the summary judgment of Defendant, Great American Insurance Company, and dismissing Plaintiff's, Carol Tedeton's, suit is affirmed. Costs are assessed to Plaintiff, Carol Tedeton.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|