Articles Posted in Insurance Company Delays

Published on: | By

valves_sprinkler_water_pipe-scaledMardi Gras, a time of joyous celebration, took an unexpected turn for a store near a French Quarter hotel when a sprinkler head malfunctioned, resulting in significant water damage. Despite the storeowner’s insurance covering the damages, a lawsuit ensued to determine the hotel’s liability for the losses incurred. This case highlights the complexities of determining responsibility and legal remedies in property damage cases, emphasizing the importance of seeking legal counsel to navigate such situations effectively.

Hotel Management of New Orleans (“HMNO”) owned and operated the French Market Inn. A sprinkler head located in the hotel was triggered during Mardi Gras, which caused a water leak and flooding in the store two floors below. The storeowner claimed water leaked into its store for approximately two hours. During that time, HMNO did not try to turn off the sprinkler but instead waited for the fire department to turn off the sprinkler. This caused damage to the store.

State Farm insured the storeowner and paid the storeowner approximately $41k under its policy. State Farm then filed a lawsuit against HMNO and its insurer, Companion Property, and Casualty Insurance Company, seeking repayment of the $41k it paid to the storeowner under its policy. The trial court found in favor of State Farm and ordered HMNO and Companion to pay the stipulated damages of $41k. HMNO and Companion appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that HMNO knew or should have known the sprinkler was defective, HMNO employees were negligent, and denying HMNO’s motion for involuntary dismissal. 

Continue reading

Published on: | By

wheelchair_pattern_black_background_23-scaledMost adults fear the day that they will need to rely on the care of another to function. Unfortunately, the rampant negligence and mistreatment only exasperate this fear throughout the nursing home and hospice industry. Small mistakes by caregivers are normal and almost expected, yet, Shirley Marzell faced severe injuries after her caregivers improperly secured her to a wheelchair lift.

Marzell was a resident at Charlyn Rehabilitation Center in Tallulah, Louisiana, at the time of her accident. In 2010, Marzell was loaded onto a wheelchair lift for the lift van operated by Charlyn. During this process, Marzell and her wheelchair rolled off the platform. This mistake caused Marzell to strike her head on the pavement, causing severe injuries. This case reached the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after Marzell and her daughters appealed the summary judgment ruling of the trial court. 

During the trial, the Marzells argued that Charlyn’s insurance carrier should pay for Shirley’s injuries. The insurance policy held by Charlyn, however, included an automobile exclusion. This provision shielded the insurance company from liability whenever Charlyn owned or operated an automobile. Operation was defined to include “loading and unloading”. The summary judgment ruling made by the trial court hinged on whether or not “loading or unloading” encompassed the loading of human cargo. The trial court held that it did, dismissing the case in favor of Charlyn and their insurance company.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

accident_car_accident_car-scaledComplex insurance issues can add more hassle to the damage from a car accident. What happens if you’re in an automobile accident after failing to pay your insurance premium? Can you still get coverage for your claims? The following case out of Baton Rouge shows why insurance companies must follow proper procedure and offer evidence of cancellation or suffer consequences.

On July 27, 2010, Beverly Smith and Darlene Shelmire were involved in a vehicle collision in Baton Rouge when Shelmire entered an intersection without yielding. Smith sustained injuries due to the accident and filed a claim against Shelmire and her insurer, Gramercy Insurance Company. The insurance company asked the court for summary judgment, claiming that Shelmire did not have insurance coverage at the time of the accident due to the cancellation of her policy for nonpayment. The court held a hearing on the motion and denied it.

The legal entity representing Gramercy Insurance Company, GoAuto, filed a new motion for summary judgment, asserting the same claim that Shelmire’s policy had been canceled before the accident. The trial court again denied this motion. In a bench trial, GoAuto filed a motion for involuntary dismissal, which the court denied. During the trial, the court heard evidence that Shelmire had paid her insurance premium on the afternoon of the accident and reported the accident a few hours later. GoAuto paid Shelmire for the damage to her vehicle the next day, despite their claim at trial that her insurance policy had been canceled by that point. Therefore, the trial ordered GoAuto to pay $15,000 in damages to Smith. GoAuto appealed this judgment. 

Continue reading

Published on: | By

bridge_mississippi_river_baton-scaledNothing is more tragic than the loss of life. However, that loss can be tempered somewhat if insurance is in place that provides some financial compensation. While money cannot substitute for the loss of love and companionship that a spouse gives, it can at least provide some help with the bills and, therefore, one less thing to worry about when grieving. But what happens when the insurance company refuses to pay your claim? The following lawsuit in Tangipahoa, Louisiana, discusses these issues in the context of a car accident, uninsured motorist coverage, and the refusal of State Farm to pay the claim. 

As Jerry and his wife Lois Draayer drove down Interstate 55 in Pike County, Mississippi, a motorist struck the couple. Unfortunately, that driver had both crossed the median and lacked sufficient insurance. The underinsured motorist was Russel Allen, and Lois Draayer tragically died from the collision. 

Lois’s family brought a lawsuit against Allen, his automobile liability insurer (Progressive Insurance Company), and named their insurer, State Farm, which they claimed provided Lois with UM coverage. The Draayers added State Farm to the suit to ensure financial recovery for Lois’s death. 

Continue reading

Published on: | By

hammer_court_judge_justice-scaledCourt cases are contentious, polarizing atmospheres between the parties. Stubbornness is ripe, and the opposing parties are staunchly in, unsurprisingly, opposition. However, sometimes even opposing parties can agree. Any party can take issue with a court’s judgment, and sometimes ALL parties can take issue with a court’s decision–even if these issues are different. But when multiple parties raise various errors in a trial court judgment, how can the higher courts resolve such allegations of error?

 In 2001, a workplace incident occurred between the plaintiff, Bradley W. Smith, and the defendant, then-coworker Paul Babin. Smith alleged that while the two parties were in the parking lot at their workplace, Babin intentionally hit Smith with his vehicle. In his 2002 lawsuit, Smith claimed that Babin was liable for Smith’s damages and later amended the lawsuit to include Shelter Mutual Insurance Company (Shelter) as Babin’s liability insurer. 

In late 2014, a trial court heard Smith’s lawsuit on liability, causation, and damages and then heard Babin’s crossclaims. At the beginning of the trial, the parties entered a pretrial stipulation that determined Smith’s past medical expenses caused by Babin’s act totaled $338,556.27, for which both Shelter and Babin would get worker’s compensation credit. 

Continue reading

Published on: | By

detour_confusion_sign_direction-scaled
Automobile insurance claims are complex enough, as it is unlikely that all parties involved will immediately agree on a settlement amount. These claims become even more convoluted when there are questions as to what state law should apply or when the insured isn’t fully aware of what his policy entails. Unfortunately, this is precisely what happened when a man was involved in an accident in New Orleans. 

Jones was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Orleans Parish, and the other driver, insured by Allstate, was found to be at fault. Jones settled with Allstate and then attempted to recover under his own uninsured/underinsured motorist claim from GEICO. GEICO denied his claim stating that Jones was in direct violation of his Georgia-issued policy and statutory law when he failed to obtain GEICO’s approval before settling with and releasing Allstate. 

Jones then brought a claim against GEICO, where he, in part, filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a judicial determination that Louisiana law applied, not Georgia’s. The Civil District Court of Orleans Parish granted Jones’ partial summary judgment claim and found that Louisiana law applied. GEICO then appealed the Trial Court’s ruling to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, where the issue focused on whether the Trial Court correctly granted Jones’ motion for partial summary judgment. 

Continue reading

Published on: | By

 

It is extremely important to review your home insurance policy to determine what types of damages the policy will actually cover, especially in areas prone to suffer from hurricane damages. Under Louisiana law, the insured individual is required to first prove that the insurance policy covers the cause of the claim. For example, if the policy only covers certain types of causes of damage, such as wind and hail, then the insured must prove that the damage was in fact caused by either wind or hail. Once the insured has done this, then the insurance company can argue that the incident is not covered by the policy. Therefore, it is extremely important that the insured take the time to determine the cause of the damage in order to prove that the policy covers their claim.

 

A case arising from Lake Charles, Louisiana illustrates this point. In this case, a homeowner suffered roof damage that they believed was caused by Hurricane Ike around September 13, 2008. Four shingles were missing and the insured claimed that this resulted in leakage in several rooms of the home. However, State Farm, the homeowner’s insurance company, determined that the leakage was not caused by Hurricane Ike and reclassified the claim as a “non-hurricane” claim.

 

State Farm, using several experts, determined that the leakage resulted from normal wear and tear on the roof, and therefore the homeowner’s insurance policy did not cover the leakage damage. Instead, State Farm concluded that only the four missing shingles were the result of wind and that they were the only damages that State Farm should reimburse to the insured; State Farm did not reimburse the insured for the damages caused by the leakage, but just the replacement value of the four damaged or missing shingles. The total damages that State Farm paid were under $500.00.

 

The insured had damages that were estimated at $9,385.00 by one expert and $204,717.78 by another expert. However, while these experts estimated what the cost of the leakage damage and repairing the roof would be, neither expert determined the actual cause of the damages. One of the insured’s experts thought that the wind had lifted the house’s flat roofing, which allowed water to enter the home. However, the expert could not explain why the nails on the flat roofing were still in place if the wind had lifted it. The State Farm expert, on the other hand, determined that the wind damage only included those four damaged or missing shingles and the leakage was actually caused by normal wear and tear. The State Farm expert concluded that there was “no evidence of roof damage that would be caused by severe weather . . . . The roofs, both asbestos shingle and built up roofs and all associated flashings are past their life cycle and are in need of replacement.”

 

The insured’s policy did not cover “poor workmanship; wear, tear, deterioration, or latent defect; settling, cracking, or expansion of walls, roofs, or ceilings; or leakage of water from air conditioning systems, household appliances, or plumbing.” Since the State Farm expert determined that the cause of the damage was from normal wear and tear, there was no way that the insured could satisfy the requirement to prove that the policy covered his claim. As such, the court granted State Farm summary judgment.

 

The court will grant summary judgment where one party cannot meet their required burden as a matter of law at trial. Summary judgment allows the court to avoid costly trials where there is one clear winner before the trial even begins. In this case, where the insured had no evidence that all of the damage he was claiming was caused by an occurrence included in the insurance policy, the court determined that summary judgment was appropriate. If the insured had employed experts that specifically testified as to the cause of the leakage damage, then the court may have allowed the case to proceed to trial. Further, the insured could have made a more diligent effort to report leakage as it occurred, which would help prevent the damage from spreading in the long run.

 

This case illustrates several very important points for the average homeowner. First, you should carefully read your policy so that you know what type of damage is covered. Second, if necessary, you may need to acquire experts that can explain what caused the damage to your home. Lastly, report damages immediately so that you can avoid costly repairs later on.  Continue reading

Published on: | By

Louisiana has a Direct Action Statute that allows injured third parties to sue an insurance company directly when the insurance company’s insured causes an injury. For example, if you are involved an automobile accident where you are not at fault, you can sue the at-fault driver’s insurance company directly instead of suing the at-fault driver themselves. The Direct Action Statute is beneficial because it gives injured third parties access to the entity that will actually pay compensation for the injuries. It can be especially helpful where the insured fails to file a claim with their insurance company themselves. However, the injured third-party’s ability to sue the insurance company directly is limited by the insurance contract between the insurance company and the insured.

Despite the fact that the insurance contract is between the insurance company and the insured, an injured third party must still comply with most of the terms of the contract. This overarching rule applies specifically to whether the policy covers the insured and whether the policy covers a particular event. The insurance company will ask: Did this person have coverage when this accident happened? and Does this policy cover this type of event? For example, in insurance contracts limited to specific times, the insurance company will not cover a claim that occurred outside the time frame of the contract, regardless of who brings the claim. In a related example, automobile coverage that is limited to only certain vehicles will cover only those vehicles, regardless of who brings the claim. That is, the injured third party can have no greater rights than the insured would have had if he or she brought the complain themselves.

In a United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case, the court determined that specific requirements of the contract also extend to injured third parties. That case involved a “claims-made-and-reported” policy. That type of policy not only requires that a claim arise within the policy period, but also that the insured (or another party under the Direct Action Statute) had to have reported the claim within the policy period. This type of notice requirement helps insurance companies avoid claims that are reported years after they happen; instead, this policy requires notice within a certain amount of time.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

When you signed up for automobile insurance, you might have noticed that many states now require automobile insurance agencies to include some sort of uninsured motorist (“UM”) clause in your insurance agreement. Oftentimes, the only way to get out of including this in your coverage, and therefore having to pay a higher premium, is by explicitly rejecting this additional coverage. How exactly do you reject this additional coverage, though? While this might seem like an easy question, most states, including the state of Louisiana, require very specific requirements to be met in order for rejection of UM coverage to be proper.

In the State of Louisiana, that is exactly the case: In order to get out of paying a higher premium for this uninsured motorist coverage, the insured has to explicitly reject that coverage. And the state of Louisiana has many rules with regard to how to properly complete this task.

In order for an uninsured motorist rejection to be considered proper, Louisiana courts have found six tasks that must be completed by the insured. In Duncan v. U.S.A.A Ins. Co., 06-0363 (La. 11/29/06), 950 So. 2d 544, the court outlines these six tasks as follows:

1) initialing the selection or rejection of coverage chosen;
2) if limits lower than the policy limits are chosen (available in options 2 and 4), then filling in the amount of coverage selected for each person and each accident;
3) printing the name of the named insured or legal representative;
4) signing the name of the named insured or legal representative;
5) filling in the policy number; and
6) filling in the date.

While the Court in Duncan did not explicitly deal with the timing of these tasks, a couple years later, the Court in Gray v. American National Propery & Cas. Co., 07-1670 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So. 2d 839, discussed the requisite timing in which the above tasks need to be completed. According to the Court in Gray, all six of these tasks have to be completed before the UM selection form is signed by the insured. The Court also went on to say that the completion of these tasks has to be done in a manner showing that the insured’s signature signifies that he or she agrees with all of the information that is contained in the insurance form. While the Court said that the tasks have to be completed before the UM selection form is signed by the insured, that was not the most important part of the Court’s findings. Rather, the most important part of the Court’s holding was that the insured’s signature needs to signify agreement with all that is contained in the form.

In the recent case decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court, Edward Morrison v. U.S.A.A Casualty Ins. Co., No. 2012-CC-2334, the Court really focused on the fact that the most important part of the timing of the UM selection form is that the insured’s signature is affirming agreement to all the clauses contained therein. This case primarily deals with task #1 listed above which requires that an individual properly initial the selection or rejection of coverage chosen in order for UM rejection to be considered proper.

In this case, the insured’s representative clearly meant to reject UM coverage but accidentally did not initial the line that stated such in the agreement form. When the insurer received the form, he or she noticed that the form was incomplete and sent it back to the insured’s representative. At that time, the representative initialed the proper line rejecting UM coverage and returned the form to the insurer. This clearly showed that the insured agreed with all of the clauses and various information contained in the form. Furthermore, all of this was completed before the relevant accident, so the court held the UM rejection valid.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

In a previous blog post, we discussed how exactly uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) benefits can be rejected in Louisiana. While that post went through some of the legal technicalities involved in rejecting UM coverage, it did not discuss in depth some of the scenarios in which coverage might be rejected and how the court might actually rule despite those legal technicalities.

This blog post will focus on specific cases and scenarios in which, despite not following every legally prescribed requirement under Louisiana law, the court has decided that coverage was actually properly rejected or limited. Some of these examples involve just a word or two out of place, others involve completely leaving off pertinent information. But all of the below examples make it clear that the parties’ intents are more important that perfectly following the letter of the law.

The first example deals with a case involving an automobile accident. In that case, the individual driving the car involved in the accident was driving one of his employer’s vehicles. So the question was whether or not the employer’s insurance company, General Insurance Company of America (GICA), had properly produced a valid and enforceable uninsured/underinsured motorist rejection form, as required by the commissioner of insurance. Whether or not this UM rejection form had been properly completed would mean the difference between $100,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 available under the policy. GICA contended that it had filled the form out properly and that coverage should be $100,000.00, and the individual driving the car claimed the opposite and that coverage should be in the amount of $1,000,000.00.

In that case, the plaintiff argued that the form did not fulfill all requirements as specified by Louisiana statute for proper uninsured/underinsured motorist rejection. Specifically, the form that was signed had an improper title. Despite the fact that the form did not have the exact proper title, the court decided that the form was still valid and enforceable, and therefore, UM rejection was properly executed. The governing factor in the case was whether or not GICA’s intent was clear from the UM rejection form. Because the intent was clear, despite the improper title, rejection was still proper.

Another example from the Louisiana court system involved a UM rejection form that not only had the title wrong, but also had several other deviations. Despite these errors, the uninsured/underinsured motorist rejection was still deemed proper because the form was clear about the limitation of the coverage. From the form, it was obvious that the party meant to limit UM motorist coverage.

Yet another case dealt with a form that was missing the insurance company name and policy number. Both of those pieces of information are technically required by law in order for the UM rejection to be valid. However, the court in that case ruled that such omissions will not invalidate an otherwise valid form when it is clear that the intent was to reject UM coverage. The technical errors had little weight on the court’s decision because the overall intent of the parties was clearly stated in the signed document.

In a Louisiana Supreme Court case, a form did not properly contain the printed name of the legal representative of the corporate insured. However, once again, despite this technical error, the Court determined that the uninsured/underinsured motorist rejection form would not be considered invalid because of that small error because the overall intent of the parties was clear from the form.

From these examples, it is clear that the courts will not always strictly apply the stated law and that sometimes the overall intent of the parties is more important and carries more weight in determining the validity of a UM rejection form.

Continue reading

Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2023, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design