FAITH A. BOUDOIN NO. 23-CA-123
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF COURT OF APPEAL OREGON, ET AL STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 759-719, DIVISION "M" HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING
October 25, 2023
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel
REVERSED; SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE SUS FHW SJW COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, FAITH A. BOUDOIN Paul E. Mayeaux
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY Catherine N. Thigpen Ashley E. Gilbert
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, RLI INSURANCE COMPANY Matthew D. Moghis William Peter Connick Michael S. Futrell Tucker H. Wimberly Thomas P. Owen, Jr.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, RURAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY Jason P. Foote Devin Caboni-Quinn Kaleigh K. Rooney SCHLEGEL, J.
Defendant, Continental Casualty Company (Continental), appeals the trial
court’s September 7, 2022 Judgment, which found that Louisiana’s anti-stacking
provision, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c), did not apply to the uninsured/underinsured
motorist (UM) insurance policies at issue in this matter. Consequently, the trial
court denied Continental’s summary judgment motion and granted summary
judgment, in part, in favor of plaintiff, Faith Boudoin, and defendant, Rural Trust
Insurance Company (Rural), as to the ranking or order of exhaustion of the UM
policies at issue. Continental also contends that the trial court erred to the extent it
allowed Ms. Boudoin to recover under its excess coverage policy issued to Eatel,
in addition to Ms. Boudoin’s personal UM policies.1
For reasons explained more fully in our decision in companion appeal, Case
No. 23-CA-65, we reverse the trial court’s September 7, 2022 Judgment granting
summary judgment, in part, in favor of Ms. Boudoin and Rural on the issue of
ranking, and grant summary judgment in favor of Continental based on our
findings that 1) the anti-stacking law set forth in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) applies to
this matter, and 2) La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(e) prevents Ms. Boudoin from recovering
against her employer’s policy issued by Continental. We further dismiss Ms.
Boudoin’s claims against Continental with prejudice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2015, Ms. Boudoin was driving her own personal vehicle, a
2009 Mercury Mariner, in the course and scope of her employment with Eatel,
when she was rear-ended by a 2014 Hyundai Accent driven by defendant, Teresa
Fuhrman. Ms. Fuhrman’s vehicle was covered by an automobile liability policy
1 Co-defendant, RLI Insurance Company (RLI), filed an appeal in companion appeal, Case No. 23-CA- 65, also contesting the trial court’s judgment with respect to the application of the anti-stacking law. In addition, RLI argues on appeal that if the anti-stacking law applies, Ms. Boudoin must choose whether to recover from 1) her personal line of UM coverage issued by RLI, or 2) a line of UM coverage issued to her employer, Eatel, by Rural and Continental.
23-CA-123 1 issued by Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon with a limit of $50,000.00, and
she was also personally covered by a policy with Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company with $15,000.00 limits. At the time of the accident, Ms. Boudoin
personally maintained a policy with Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance
Company (Allstate) that provided $250,000.00 in UM coverage, and a
$1,000,000.00 personal umbrella policy with RLI. Eatel also maintained a
commercial automobile policy through The Phoenix Insurance Company, a
Travelers’ company (Travelers) with $1,000,000.00 in UM coverage, an excess
third-party liability policy with Continental with limits of $25,000,000.00, and a
commercial excess/umbrella policy with Rural providing $10,000,000.00 in
coverage.
Allstate tendered its policy limits of $250,000.00 to Ms. Boudoin, and on
August 31, 2020, the trial court entered an order dismissing her claims against
Allstate with prejudice. Ms. Boudoin also entered into a settlement agreement
with Travelers on September 27, 2021 for $865,000.00 of its $1,000,000.00 UM
policy limits, and on October 21, 2021, the trial court entered an order dismissing
Travelers with prejudice. Following the settlement with Travelers, Ms. Boudoin,
as well as several of the insurance companies, filed motions for summary judgment
seeking rulings on coverage and ranking issues that are the subject of the present
appeal.
Ms. Boudoin filed a summary judgment motion arguing that at the time of
the accident she was covered by her personal UM policies and her employer’s UM
policies and that she is entitled to recover from all of them ‒ her personal UM
policy with RLI, as well as Eatel’s UM policies with Continental and Rural. She
further asked the trial court to rank the order of payment for the UM policies as
follows: 1) Allstate; 2) RLI; 3) Travelers; 4) Continental; and 5) Rural. Rural filed
23-CA-123 2 a similar summary judgment motion, but asked that the trial court rank its policy
last in the order of payment arguing that its policy was a true excess policy.
Continental, on the other hand, argued in its summary judgment motion that
the anti-stacking provision contained in the UM statute, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c),
prohibited Ms. Boudoin from recovering against multiple UM policies because Ms.
Boudoin owned the vehicle she occupied at the time of the accident. Continental
also argued that, irrespective of whether coverage existed, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(e)
barred her from recovering under its policy because she was occupying a vehicle
she owned at the time of the accident, which was not specifically listed in the
Travelers or Continental policies. Therefore, Continental argued that Ms. Boudoin
could only recover from her personal line of UM policies issued by Allstate and
RLI.
RLI agreed that the anti-stacking provision applies in this matter, but filed its
own motion for summary judgment arguing that Ms. Boudoin should be allowed to
choose whether to pursue coverage under her personal line of UM policies with
Allstate and RLI totaling $1,250,000.00 in limits, or Eatel’s line of policies issued
by Travelers, Continental, and Rural with total limits of $36,000,000.00. RLI
further argued that if Ms. Boudoin chooses to recover under her personal line, then
she could not recover any additional proceeds from RLI because she previously
settled with Allstate and Travelers, which had combined UM policy limits of
$1,250,000.00. RLI argued that allowing Ms. Boudoin to recover any further
proceeds from RLI would violate the prohibition in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) against
increasing the limits provided under more than one policy. Finally, RLI argued
that if the trial court reached the issue of ranking, its excess umbrella policy should
be ranked after Travelers’ primary UM policy.
Following oral argument on August 22, 2022, the trial court took the matter
under submission. On September 7, 2022, the trial court issued a written judgment
23-CA-123 3 with reasons granting Ms. Boudoin’s and Rural’s motions for summary judgment,
in part, as to ranking, and denied Continental and RLI’s summary judgment
motions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FAITH A. BOUDOIN NO. 23-CA-123
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF COURT OF APPEAL OREGON, ET AL STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 759-719, DIVISION "M" HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING
October 25, 2023
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Scott U. Schlegel
REVERSED; SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE SUS FHW SJW COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, FAITH A. BOUDOIN Paul E. Mayeaux
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY Catherine N. Thigpen Ashley E. Gilbert
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, RLI INSURANCE COMPANY Matthew D. Moghis William Peter Connick Michael S. Futrell Tucker H. Wimberly Thomas P. Owen, Jr.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, RURAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY Jason P. Foote Devin Caboni-Quinn Kaleigh K. Rooney SCHLEGEL, J.
Defendant, Continental Casualty Company (Continental), appeals the trial
court’s September 7, 2022 Judgment, which found that Louisiana’s anti-stacking
provision, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c), did not apply to the uninsured/underinsured
motorist (UM) insurance policies at issue in this matter. Consequently, the trial
court denied Continental’s summary judgment motion and granted summary
judgment, in part, in favor of plaintiff, Faith Boudoin, and defendant, Rural Trust
Insurance Company (Rural), as to the ranking or order of exhaustion of the UM
policies at issue. Continental also contends that the trial court erred to the extent it
allowed Ms. Boudoin to recover under its excess coverage policy issued to Eatel,
in addition to Ms. Boudoin’s personal UM policies.1
For reasons explained more fully in our decision in companion appeal, Case
No. 23-CA-65, we reverse the trial court’s September 7, 2022 Judgment granting
summary judgment, in part, in favor of Ms. Boudoin and Rural on the issue of
ranking, and grant summary judgment in favor of Continental based on our
findings that 1) the anti-stacking law set forth in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) applies to
this matter, and 2) La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(e) prevents Ms. Boudoin from recovering
against her employer’s policy issued by Continental. We further dismiss Ms.
Boudoin’s claims against Continental with prejudice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2015, Ms. Boudoin was driving her own personal vehicle, a
2009 Mercury Mariner, in the course and scope of her employment with Eatel,
when she was rear-ended by a 2014 Hyundai Accent driven by defendant, Teresa
Fuhrman. Ms. Fuhrman’s vehicle was covered by an automobile liability policy
1 Co-defendant, RLI Insurance Company (RLI), filed an appeal in companion appeal, Case No. 23-CA- 65, also contesting the trial court’s judgment with respect to the application of the anti-stacking law. In addition, RLI argues on appeal that if the anti-stacking law applies, Ms. Boudoin must choose whether to recover from 1) her personal line of UM coverage issued by RLI, or 2) a line of UM coverage issued to her employer, Eatel, by Rural and Continental.
23-CA-123 1 issued by Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon with a limit of $50,000.00, and
she was also personally covered by a policy with Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company with $15,000.00 limits. At the time of the accident, Ms. Boudoin
personally maintained a policy with Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance
Company (Allstate) that provided $250,000.00 in UM coverage, and a
$1,000,000.00 personal umbrella policy with RLI. Eatel also maintained a
commercial automobile policy through The Phoenix Insurance Company, a
Travelers’ company (Travelers) with $1,000,000.00 in UM coverage, an excess
third-party liability policy with Continental with limits of $25,000,000.00, and a
commercial excess/umbrella policy with Rural providing $10,000,000.00 in
coverage.
Allstate tendered its policy limits of $250,000.00 to Ms. Boudoin, and on
August 31, 2020, the trial court entered an order dismissing her claims against
Allstate with prejudice. Ms. Boudoin also entered into a settlement agreement
with Travelers on September 27, 2021 for $865,000.00 of its $1,000,000.00 UM
policy limits, and on October 21, 2021, the trial court entered an order dismissing
Travelers with prejudice. Following the settlement with Travelers, Ms. Boudoin,
as well as several of the insurance companies, filed motions for summary judgment
seeking rulings on coverage and ranking issues that are the subject of the present
appeal.
Ms. Boudoin filed a summary judgment motion arguing that at the time of
the accident she was covered by her personal UM policies and her employer’s UM
policies and that she is entitled to recover from all of them ‒ her personal UM
policy with RLI, as well as Eatel’s UM policies with Continental and Rural. She
further asked the trial court to rank the order of payment for the UM policies as
follows: 1) Allstate; 2) RLI; 3) Travelers; 4) Continental; and 5) Rural. Rural filed
23-CA-123 2 a similar summary judgment motion, but asked that the trial court rank its policy
last in the order of payment arguing that its policy was a true excess policy.
Continental, on the other hand, argued in its summary judgment motion that
the anti-stacking provision contained in the UM statute, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c),
prohibited Ms. Boudoin from recovering against multiple UM policies because Ms.
Boudoin owned the vehicle she occupied at the time of the accident. Continental
also argued that, irrespective of whether coverage existed, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(e)
barred her from recovering under its policy because she was occupying a vehicle
she owned at the time of the accident, which was not specifically listed in the
Travelers or Continental policies. Therefore, Continental argued that Ms. Boudoin
could only recover from her personal line of UM policies issued by Allstate and
RLI.
RLI agreed that the anti-stacking provision applies in this matter, but filed its
own motion for summary judgment arguing that Ms. Boudoin should be allowed to
choose whether to pursue coverage under her personal line of UM policies with
Allstate and RLI totaling $1,250,000.00 in limits, or Eatel’s line of policies issued
by Travelers, Continental, and Rural with total limits of $36,000,000.00. RLI
further argued that if Ms. Boudoin chooses to recover under her personal line, then
she could not recover any additional proceeds from RLI because she previously
settled with Allstate and Travelers, which had combined UM policy limits of
$1,250,000.00. RLI argued that allowing Ms. Boudoin to recover any further
proceeds from RLI would violate the prohibition in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) against
increasing the limits provided under more than one policy. Finally, RLI argued
that if the trial court reached the issue of ranking, its excess umbrella policy should
be ranked after Travelers’ primary UM policy.
Following oral argument on August 22, 2022, the trial court took the matter
under submission. On September 7, 2022, the trial court issued a written judgment
23-CA-123 3 with reasons granting Ms. Boudoin’s and Rural’s motions for summary judgment,
in part, as to ranking, and denied Continental and RLI’s summary judgment
motions. On October 3, 2022, the trial court also entered an order designating this
judgment as final pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B).
DISCUSSION AND DECREE
For the reasons stated more fully in our decision in companion appeal,
Boudoin v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Oregon, et.al, Case No. 23-CA-65 (La. App. 5 Cir.
10/25/23), we reverse the trial court’s September 7, 2022 Judgment granting Ms.
Boudoin’s and Rural’s summary judgment motions, in part, on the issue of ranking
and deny those summary judgment motions in their entirety. We grant
Continental’s summary judgment motion based on our findings that La. R.S.
22:1295(c) and (e) limit Ms. Boudoin to recovery against one line of UM insurance
coverage, in this case her personal line, and dismiss Ms. Boudoin’s claims against
Continental with prejudice.
REVERSED; SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
23-CA-123 4 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN STEPHEN J. WINDHORST FIRST DEPUTY CLERK JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY OCTOBER 25, 2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
23-CA-123 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT (DISTRICT JUDGE) PAUL E. MAYEAUX (APPELLEE) CATHERINE N. THIGPEN (APPELLANT) MATTHEW D. MOGHIS (APPELLEE) MICHAEL S. FUTRELL (APPELLEE) THOMAS P. OWEN, JR. (APPELLEE) WILLIAM PETER CONNICK (APPELLEE) JASON P. FOOTE (APPELLEE)
MAILED JOHN J. ERNY, III (APPELLEE) DEVIN CABONI-QUINN (APPELLEE) TUCKER H. WIMBERLY (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW KALEIGH K. ROONEY (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1425 AIRLINE DRIVE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3421 NORTH CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD SUITE 200 2821 RICHLAND AVENUE SUITE 408 METAIRIE, LA 70001 SUITE 202 METAIRIE, LA 70002 METAIRIE, LA 70002 PAUL MICHAEL ELVIR, JR. (APPELLEE) ASHLEY E. GILBERT (APPELLANT) ATTORNEY AT LAW DONALD R. KLOTZ, JR. (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW 3900 NORTH CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD ATTORNEY AT LAW ONE GALLERIA BOULEVARD SUITE 650 701 POYDRAS STREET SUITE 1530 METAIRIE, LA 70002 SUITE 4700 METAIRIE, LA 70001 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139