Charles Higgins v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

CHARLES HIGGINS NO. 2020 CW 0179 PAGE 1 OF 2

VERSUS

LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU AUGUST 10, 2020 CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In Re: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District

Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 671722.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s January 6, 2020 judgment denying the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Farm Bureau"), is hereby reversed. When the existence of

uninsured/ underinsured (" UM") coverage under a policy of

automobile insurance is employ two- step

at issue, the courts a

analysis: ( 1) insurance policy is first examined the automobile

to determine whether UM coverage is contractually provided under the express provisions of the policy; ( 2) if no UM coverage is found under the policy provisions, then the UM statute is applied to determine whether statutory coverage is mandated.

Green ex rel. Peterson v. Johnson, 2014- 0292 ( La. 10/ 15/ 14), 149 So. 3d 766, 773- 74.

Plaintiff, Charles Higgins, was issued a policy of

insurance by Farm Bureau that contained a " furnished for regular use" exclusion. Higgins was given a vehicle by his employer to use on a daily basis, and Higgins was driving that vehicle at

the time of the accident. Though Higgins is not guaranteed the same vehicle every day, he usually is assigned the same vehicle, which contains all of his tools and other items essential to

completing his job. Higgins equated his work -assigned vehicle

to "

your locker at work." We find the " furnished for regular

use" exclusion applies, and UM coverage is not afforded under

the policy. Our analysis then turns to whether the UM statute, La. R. S. 22: 1295, mandates coverage. "[ I] n order for a tort

victim to be entitled to statutory UM coverage, which would be an implied amendment to an automobile liability policy not

expressly containing such coverage, the tort victim seeking UM

coverage must qualify as a liability insured under the policy at issue." Green, 149 So. 3d at 772, citing Magnon v. Collins, 98- 2822 ( La. 7/ 7/ 99), 739 So. 2d 191, 195- 96. The " furnished for regular use" exclusion applies to the liability coverage portion of the policy as well, so Higgins not was liability insured

under the express terms of the policy. Therefore, statutory UM coverage is not available. Accordingly, Higgins' bad faith claim also fails because there can be no such claim when a valid coverage exclusion is asserted. See Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003- 0107 ( La. 10/ 21/ 03), 857 So. 2d 1012, 1021

The statutory penalties are inappropriate when the insurer has a reasonable basis to defend the claim and acts in good - faith reliance on that defense.").

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CW 0179

PAGE 2 OF 2

For these reasons, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment filed Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance by The Plaintiff, Charles Higgins, against Company. claims of

Defendant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, are

dismissed with prejudice.

VGW JMG JMM MRT

Chutz, J., dissents.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

D& PtTt X J-aeL4

CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT