No Right to UM Coverage if You are not an Insured
WRIT PRACTICE OFTEN UNSUCCESSFUL BUT NOT ALWAYS
The Louisiana Court of Appeals was asked to do what it normally would
not do: determine if the trial court erred in denying a motion for
summary judgment filed by Employers Mutual Casualty Company ("Employers
Mutual"). In Lee Mallahan, III v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., et al,
No. 55,136-CW, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit (September
27, 2023) Employers received its request.
FACTS
On June 1, 2020, Erick Guevara ("Guevara"), drove to Mallahan’s house
who was standing in the driveway picking up worms from the pavement and
throwing them into the grass, only to strike Mallahan with Guevera’s
truck. Mallahan alleged the pickup truck knocked him into the air and
caused him to lose consciousness. Mallahan sued on April 21, 2021 and
named as defendants Guevera and Employers Mutual.
As the managing member and an employee of Tadpole, LLC ("Tadpole"),
Mallahan alleged that Employers Mutual provided "insurance coverage,
excess coverage, umbrella coverage, or other coverage" for Mallahan's
damages.
Employers Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment and urged no
uninsured/underinsured ("UM") coverage existed for Mallahan's injuries
under the terms of the commercial auto policy or the commercial umbrella
policy issued to Tadpole.
The trial court ordered that Mallahan raised genuine issues of material
fact and denied the motion. Employers Mutual Sought a writ from the
Court of Appeals to order the trial court to grant its motion for
summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
Employers Mutual urged that, because it made a showing that Mallahan was
not an insured under the policies issued to Tadpole there was no
genuine issue of material fact to preclude the granting of summary
judgment.
A genuine issue is one about which reasonable people could disagree. A material fact is one that potentially ensures or precludes recovery, affects the ultimate success of the litigant, or determines the outcome of the dispute. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material
for summary judgment purposes can be seen only in light of the
substantive law applicable to the case.
Summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion, under which coverage could be afforded.