 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shepherd v. Fregozo6/13/2005
59 S.E.2d 636 (1968);Westhaver v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., 15 Wash.App. 406, 407-409, 549 P.2d 507 (1976). Compare and contrast Pacific Auto Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 56 Cal.App.2d 597, 600-601, 132 P.2d 846 (1943); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Falls, 114 Ga.App.812, 814, and see 815-817, 152 S.E.2d 811 (1966); Miller v. Farmers Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 179 Kan. 50, 53, 54, 292 P.2d 711 (1956); Glisson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 246 S.C. 76, 81, 85, 142 S.E.2d 447 (1965).
Galvin v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 417 N.E.2d 34, 35-37 (Mass.App.1981). (footnotes omitted.)
In St. Pierre v. Permanent General Assurance, 829 So.2d 1185 (La.App.2002), Plaintiff was a deputy sheriff of St. Martin parish who owned a private vehicle insured by Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance. While on duty, he was driving his regularly assigned sheriff's vehicle when he was rear ended by a Ford Explorer driven by one Beau Branch. He was injured in the crash and brought suit against Branch and his insurer, Permanent General Assurance, along with the Louisiana Sheriff's Association. He joined as a defendant, Farm Bureau, seeking recovery of the uninsured motorist coverage under his private insurance policy. The Farm Bureau "regular use" exclusion provided:
This insuring agreement does not apply:
(1) to any automobile owned by or furnished for regular use to either the named insured or a member of the same household.
St. Pierre v. Permanent General Assurance, 829 So.2d at 1187.
The specific uninsured motorist exclusionary clause provided:
Exclusions. This policy does not apply under coverage U:
(b) to any automobile or trailer owned by or furnished for the regular use of the named insured or a resident of the household not described on the declarations.
St. Pierre v. Permanent General Assurance, 829 So.2d at 1187.
Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on the "regular use" exclusion in the policy, which motion was granted, and Plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Court held:
The plaintiff asserts that the regular use exclusion is in conflict with Howell v. Balboa Insurance Co., 564 So.2d 298 (La.1990); and in turn, the plaintiff contends that summary judgment was inappropriate. In Howell, the Louisiana Supreme Court held:
UM coverage attaches to the person of the insured, not the vehicle, and that any provision of UM coverage purporting to limit insured status to instances involving a relationship to an insured vehicle contravenes LSA-R.S. 22:1406(D). In other words, any person who enjoys the status of insured under a Louisiana motor vehicle policy which includes coverage enjoys coverage protection simply by reason of having sustained injury by an inunsured/underinsured motorist vehicle.
Id. at 301-302. The plaintiff argues that the above statement renders enforcement of the regular use exclusion of the UM provision against public policy.
On the other hand, Farm Bureau argues in its brief that this court should follow the first circuit's reasoning illustrated in Dardar v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 98-1363 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/25/99); 739 So.2d 330, writ denied, 99-2196 (La. 11/12/99); 750 So.2d 195. In Dardar, the first circuit held that an employer's pick-up truck, available for the employee's regular use, was not covered by the employee's personal automobile insurance policy. Dardar, 98-1363; 739 So.2d 330. After being struck by another automobile while driving a pick-up owned by his employer, an employee attempted to recover under an insurance policy on his personal automobile providing UM coverage. Id.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|