STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
24-304
JASMINE PORTER
VERSUS
GOAUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE NINNTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 274,656 HONORABLE MONIQUE F. RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE
SHARON DARVILLE WILSON JUDGE
Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Jonathan W. Perry, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges.
AFFIRMED. Joshua J. Dara, Jr. R. Morgan Briggs Connor Hedrick GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL Post Office Box 6118 Alexandria, Louisiana 71307-6118 (318) 445-6471 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Jasmine Porter
Bradley J. Gadel BRADLEY J. GADEL, APLC 728 Jackson Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 (337) 448-4406 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: GoAuto Insurance Company WILSON, Judge.
This case involves the reasonableness of expenses for a rental vehicle
following an automobile accident in which the plaintiff’s vehicle was rendered a
total loss. Defendant, GoAuto Insurance Company (GoAuto), appeals the award of
$10,060.32 in rental expenses to Jasmine Porter (Porter). We affirm.
I.
ISSUES
The only issues before this court concern the award for rental expenses.
GoAuto asserts the following assignments of error:
1. The trial judge committed manifest error and was otherwise clearly wrong in awarding excessive rental expenses in favor of the plaintiff in view of the fact that the plaintiff continued to stay in a rental vehicle for several months after she was paid for her total loss, while GoAuto was completely unaware that plaintiff was placed in a rental vehicle by her attorney.
2. The trial judge committed manifest error and was otherwise clearly wrong in failing to discount the rental invoice by collision damage waiver coverage purchased by the claimant and failing to recognize that same was betterment or an unjust enrichment with benefits which would not have been available to her in her damaged vehicle.
3. The trial judge committed manifest error and was otherwise clearly wrong in considering arguments from plaintiff that her financial condition did not allow her to purchase a substitute vehicle in a timely fashion, contrary to Louisiana jurisprudence, while having the benefit of legal counsel who actually put her in a rental vehicle unbeknownst to GoAuto.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a party has replaced a totaled “vehicle in a reasonable amount of time
and is thus entitled to all damages claimed for the rental vehicle . . . is a factual
determination which should not be reversed absent manifest error.” Lowery v.
Safeway Ins. Co. of La., 03-1456, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/04), 865 So.2d 1060, 1063. III.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2022, Porter was driving her 2001 Toyota Rav 4 on MacArthur
Drive in Alexandria, Louisiana, when her vehicle was rear-ended by a 2011 GMC
Sierra, owned and operated by Kenderek Parker (Parker). The impact caused
Porter’s vehicle to crash into a Ford F150, owned by Derek Hennesey and driven by
Dylan Hennesey.1 Parker was insured by GoAuto.
Porter’s car was deemed a total loss on March 16, 2022, but Porter did not
receive payment of $4,468.00 for that loss until March 29, 2022. Porter’s lawyer
helped her obtain a rental vehicle from Enterprise on February 3, 2022. The rental
of a Jeep Cherokee included a collision damage waiver, which cost $24.99 per day.
Porter kept the rental vehicle until May 24, 2022, which was the conclusion of her
children’s school year. The rental invoice from Enterprise indicates that Porter had
the rental vehicle for one hundred ten days. Porter remained without transportation
until December of 2022, when she was gifted a 2004 Nissan Maxima.
Porter filed suit against Parker and GoAuto on August 31, 2022. Following a
bench trial on January 9, 2024, Porter was awarded $10,000.00 in general damages,
$4,743.00 for medical bills, and the total amount of the Enterprise bill ($10,060.32
less $1,800.00 previously paid by GoAuto), plus legal interest. GoAuto tendered
payment of $15,984.74 on January 28, 2024. Judgment was signed on March 5,
2024, and GoAuto appealed the judgment with respect to the award for rental
expenses.
1 The Henneseys are not parties to this litigation.
2 IV.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
“It is well established in the jurisprudence that damages for the rental of a
vehicle are recoverable, although not unlimited.” Wiley v. Safeway Ins. Co., 99-161,
p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/14/99), 745 So.2d 636, 639. The rule has been said to be
subject to the following reservation: “In those cases in which the wrecked vehicle
is totally destroyed or its repair is not economically feasible, those damages are
recoverable only for a reasonable time, that period in which the owner becomes
aware of the situation and secures a replacement therefor.” Washington v. Lake City
Beverage, Inc., 352 So.2d 717, 722 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977), writ denied, 354 So.2d
1050 (La.1978). “Exactly what is a reasonable time depends on the facts and
circumstances of each individual case.” Wiley, 745 So.2d at 640.
GoAuto argues that Porter “sprung” the rental bill on them two months after
the total loss payment was made, that Porter failed to mitigate her rental expenses,
that Porter’s absence of funds with which to replace her damaged vehicle cannot be
used to extend the reasonable time period, and that Porter was unjustly enriched by
the collision damage waiver for the rental that allowed her to enjoy more coverage
on the rental than she did on her damaged vehicle. Accordingly, GoAuto asks this
court to “correct the judgment of the trial judge” and reduce the amount recoverable
by Porter to sixty days as was previously tendered by GoAuto.
Porter, on the other hand, argues that it was reasonable to keep the rental
vehicle for sixty-nine days after being apprised that her vehicle was a total loss.
Porter testified that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the availability of vehicles was
greatly reduced and that despite her best efforts, she was unable to find a suitable
replacement vehicle that was within her budget. She testified that the totaled vehicle
3 was gifted to her and that it was paid off at the time of the accident. Porter testified
that in order to find a replacement vehicle, she searched online, called different
dealerships, and had people take her to different places to look for vehicles. Porter
indicated that she returned the rental vehicle before she found a replacement on the
advice of friends and because she did not want to “rack up any charges.” She felt
that as long as she was able to get her children to school, it would be okay and that
she would “just do what [she had] to do . . . after that.” She testified that it was
stressful and inconvenient to be without a vehicle.
Tonya Smith Johnson (Johnson), a litigation claims representative for GoAuto,
testified that before receiving a May 25, 2022 letter from Porter’s attorney, GoAuto
was not aware that Porter had a rental vehicle. She testified that it was common
practice for those with damaged vehicles to ask to be put in rental vehicles. Johnson
further testified that with respect to vehicles that are a total loss, GoAuto’s policy is
to make contact with the vehicle owner after it is deemed a total loss and discuss
options. The owner can either retain the vehicle or sell it to the insurance company.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
24-304
JASMINE PORTER
VERSUS
GOAUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE NINNTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 274,656 HONORABLE MONIQUE F. RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE
SHARON DARVILLE WILSON JUDGE
Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Jonathan W. Perry, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges.
AFFIRMED. Joshua J. Dara, Jr. R. Morgan Briggs Connor Hedrick GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL Post Office Box 6118 Alexandria, Louisiana 71307-6118 (318) 445-6471 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Jasmine Porter
Bradley J. Gadel BRADLEY J. GADEL, APLC 728 Jackson Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 (337) 448-4406 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: GoAuto Insurance Company WILSON, Judge.
This case involves the reasonableness of expenses for a rental vehicle
following an automobile accident in which the plaintiff’s vehicle was rendered a
total loss. Defendant, GoAuto Insurance Company (GoAuto), appeals the award of
$10,060.32 in rental expenses to Jasmine Porter (Porter). We affirm.
I.
ISSUES
The only issues before this court concern the award for rental expenses.
GoAuto asserts the following assignments of error:
1. The trial judge committed manifest error and was otherwise clearly wrong in awarding excessive rental expenses in favor of the plaintiff in view of the fact that the plaintiff continued to stay in a rental vehicle for several months after she was paid for her total loss, while GoAuto was completely unaware that plaintiff was placed in a rental vehicle by her attorney.
2. The trial judge committed manifest error and was otherwise clearly wrong in failing to discount the rental invoice by collision damage waiver coverage purchased by the claimant and failing to recognize that same was betterment or an unjust enrichment with benefits which would not have been available to her in her damaged vehicle.
3. The trial judge committed manifest error and was otherwise clearly wrong in considering arguments from plaintiff that her financial condition did not allow her to purchase a substitute vehicle in a timely fashion, contrary to Louisiana jurisprudence, while having the benefit of legal counsel who actually put her in a rental vehicle unbeknownst to GoAuto.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a party has replaced a totaled “vehicle in a reasonable amount of time
and is thus entitled to all damages claimed for the rental vehicle . . . is a factual
determination which should not be reversed absent manifest error.” Lowery v.
Safeway Ins. Co. of La., 03-1456, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/04), 865 So.2d 1060, 1063. III.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 2022, Porter was driving her 2001 Toyota Rav 4 on MacArthur
Drive in Alexandria, Louisiana, when her vehicle was rear-ended by a 2011 GMC
Sierra, owned and operated by Kenderek Parker (Parker). The impact caused
Porter’s vehicle to crash into a Ford F150, owned by Derek Hennesey and driven by
Dylan Hennesey.1 Parker was insured by GoAuto.
Porter’s car was deemed a total loss on March 16, 2022, but Porter did not
receive payment of $4,468.00 for that loss until March 29, 2022. Porter’s lawyer
helped her obtain a rental vehicle from Enterprise on February 3, 2022. The rental
of a Jeep Cherokee included a collision damage waiver, which cost $24.99 per day.
Porter kept the rental vehicle until May 24, 2022, which was the conclusion of her
children’s school year. The rental invoice from Enterprise indicates that Porter had
the rental vehicle for one hundred ten days. Porter remained without transportation
until December of 2022, when she was gifted a 2004 Nissan Maxima.
Porter filed suit against Parker and GoAuto on August 31, 2022. Following a
bench trial on January 9, 2024, Porter was awarded $10,000.00 in general damages,
$4,743.00 for medical bills, and the total amount of the Enterprise bill ($10,060.32
less $1,800.00 previously paid by GoAuto), plus legal interest. GoAuto tendered
payment of $15,984.74 on January 28, 2024. Judgment was signed on March 5,
2024, and GoAuto appealed the judgment with respect to the award for rental
expenses.
1 The Henneseys are not parties to this litigation.
2 IV.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
“It is well established in the jurisprudence that damages for the rental of a
vehicle are recoverable, although not unlimited.” Wiley v. Safeway Ins. Co., 99-161,
p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/14/99), 745 So.2d 636, 639. The rule has been said to be
subject to the following reservation: “In those cases in which the wrecked vehicle
is totally destroyed or its repair is not economically feasible, those damages are
recoverable only for a reasonable time, that period in which the owner becomes
aware of the situation and secures a replacement therefor.” Washington v. Lake City
Beverage, Inc., 352 So.2d 717, 722 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977), writ denied, 354 So.2d
1050 (La.1978). “Exactly what is a reasonable time depends on the facts and
circumstances of each individual case.” Wiley, 745 So.2d at 640.
GoAuto argues that Porter “sprung” the rental bill on them two months after
the total loss payment was made, that Porter failed to mitigate her rental expenses,
that Porter’s absence of funds with which to replace her damaged vehicle cannot be
used to extend the reasonable time period, and that Porter was unjustly enriched by
the collision damage waiver for the rental that allowed her to enjoy more coverage
on the rental than she did on her damaged vehicle. Accordingly, GoAuto asks this
court to “correct the judgment of the trial judge” and reduce the amount recoverable
by Porter to sixty days as was previously tendered by GoAuto.
Porter, on the other hand, argues that it was reasonable to keep the rental
vehicle for sixty-nine days after being apprised that her vehicle was a total loss.
Porter testified that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the availability of vehicles was
greatly reduced and that despite her best efforts, she was unable to find a suitable
replacement vehicle that was within her budget. She testified that the totaled vehicle
3 was gifted to her and that it was paid off at the time of the accident. Porter testified
that in order to find a replacement vehicle, she searched online, called different
dealerships, and had people take her to different places to look for vehicles. Porter
indicated that she returned the rental vehicle before she found a replacement on the
advice of friends and because she did not want to “rack up any charges.” She felt
that as long as she was able to get her children to school, it would be okay and that
she would “just do what [she had] to do . . . after that.” She testified that it was
stressful and inconvenient to be without a vehicle.
Tonya Smith Johnson (Johnson), a litigation claims representative for GoAuto,
testified that before receiving a May 25, 2022 letter from Porter’s attorney, GoAuto
was not aware that Porter had a rental vehicle. She testified that it was common
practice for those with damaged vehicles to ask to be put in rental vehicles. Johnson
further testified that with respect to vehicles that are a total loss, GoAuto’s policy is
to make contact with the vehicle owner after it is deemed a total loss and discuss
options. The owner can either retain the vehicle or sell it to the insurance company.
Johnson testified that after such offer is made and accepted, GoAuto gives the owner
a certain amount of days, maybe seven to ten days, before the rental is terminated.
Johnson testified that the daily rental rate plus the collision damage waiver charge
was over $80.00 per day in this case; and when asked whether that was an unusual
charge for that service, Johnson answered, “No.” Johnson testified that $30.00 per
day for loss of use was a reasonable rate, but she did not testify as to what rental
rates were in the area during the relevant time period.
Johnson testified that GoAuto was given permission to talk to Porter directly
about her property damage but that the notes do not reflect that any conversation
about a rental vehicle occurred. Johnson stated that it was her opinion that two
4 months was too long for someone to be in a rental vehicle following their vehicle
being declared a total loss. Johnson, however, did note that she was not aware of
any policy stating this but that her opinion was based on the duty to mitigate damages.
In its oral reasons for ruling, the trial court stated: “[I]f I’m going to determine
who definitely should have addressed the property damage first, I would say GoAuto,
because GoAuto, they do this every day. . . . So I decided they should foot this
expense, based upon their failure, because they have the experience and the
knowledge.”
In Hill v. Sampson, 628 So.2d 81, 85 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1993), the trial court
noted that the plaintiff “may not have ‘shopped around’ for the lowest rate” on a
rental vehicle, but refused to say that the rental expense was unreasonable where no
evidence was presented to show that the rental rate incurred “was unreasonable or
even above the average rental rates in the area.” In Meshell v. Insurance Company
of North America, 416 So.2d 1383, 1388 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1982), this court affirmed
the trial court’s finding that sixty days “was a reasonable time to take to secure a
suitable replacement for the plaintiff’s gravel truck[] and that the plaintiff made a
good faith effort to do so within that time.” This court noted that the nature and cost
of the property were relevant to the determination that the length of time was
reasonable.
Our decision in Thomas v. Champion Insurance Company, 603 So.2d 765
(La.App. 3 Cir. 1992), is also instructive. In that case, David Wallace (Wallace), the
plaintiff in reconvention, was awarded rental expenses for fifty-four weeks. This
court reversed the award and stated that given the facts of that particular case, two
months was a reasonable time. The factors considered were the extent of the
damages and the age of the vehicle involved in the accident. The 1981 Honda was
5 a total loss and was eight years old at the time of the crash. It was also noted that
Wallace rented the vehicle from his father.
In this instance, Porter returned the rental vehicle before she found a suitable
replacement for her totaled vehicle. She diligently searched for a replacement
vehicle that was within her budget but found none. With respect to the collision
damage waiver, Porter testified that she did not request this but that she did
understand what its purpose was. Her counsel argues that it was a prudent measure
to mitigate any additional financial exposure while using the rental vehicle. Based
on the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that both the rental expenses
incurred by Porter and the amount of time the rental vehicle was utilized were
V.
CONCLUSION
We find that the trial court did not err in awarding the total rental expense of
$10,060.32, less $1,800.00 previously paid by GoAuto, together with legal interest
from the date of judicial demand until paid, to Jasmine Porter. The amount incurred
and the time the rental vehicle was utilized are reasonable under the facts of this case.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and costs of this appeal are assessed to
GoAuto Insurance Company.
AFFIRMED.