Jurisdiction Chosen by Contract of Insurance Must be Followed
Clear & Unambiguous Policy Conditions Must be Followed
Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter “GEICO”) sought
review of the trial court's July 12, 2023 judgment denying its motion
for partial summary judgment.
In Washington Dos Santos v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Government
Employees Insurance Company And Carrie Ann Rainey, No. 2023-C-0559,
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (September 18, 2023)
resolved the dispute.
RELEVANT FACTS
Washington Dos Santos sued for damages asserting damages as a result of a
motor vehicle accident. Dos Santos named GEICO as a defendant in its
capacity as the uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer of the vehicle
he was operating at the time of the accident. In his petition for
damages, Dos Santos asserted that GEICO violated Louisiana's penalty
statutes which require that an insurer be fair in its handling of claims
and tender payment when satisfactory proof of loss is established.
On April 23, 2023, GEICO filed a motion for partial summary judgment
asserting that Respondent's claim under his insurance policy contract
dictates that all claims are subject to North Carolina law and
therefore, Louisiana's penalty statutes are inapplicable. GEICO averred
that the policy was issued to Respondent at a North Carolina address;
Respondent has a North Carolina driver's license; and the vehicle is
registered in North Carolina.
DISCUSSION
To succeed in a motion for summary judgment there must be a genuine
issue of material fact. A genuine issue is one to which reasonable
persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one
conclusion, no need for trial on that issue exists and summary judgment
is appropriate.
GEICO maintained the trial court erred in denying its motion for partial
summary judgment because the insurance policy specifically mandates
Respondent's claim is subject to North Carolina law and thus,
Louisiana's penalty statutes are inapplicable. GEICO did so because Dos
Santos’ policy provided, in pertinent part: “This policy is issued in
accordance with the laws of North Carolina and covers property or risks
principally located in North Carolina. Any and all claims or disputes in
any way related to this policy shall be governed by the laws of North
Carolina.”
CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY WORDING
Dos Santos’ insurance policy mandates application of North Carolina law.
The language in the policy is clear and unambiguous thus, it must be enforced as written.
When the words of an insurance contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent and courts must enforce the contract as written. The language contained in GEICO's policy with Respondent are
clear, North Carolina law applies to any disputes or claims.
GEICO satisfied its burden of establishing that the language of the
contract of insurance is clear and unambiguous and that North Carolina
law applies. Therefore, the trial court's judgment denying GEICO's
motion for partial summary judgment was reversed.
ZALMA OPINION
People like Mr. Dos Santos want to punish an insurer that fails to pay
what they want so they can profit from an insurance policy. Louisiana allows an insurer to be penalized and North Carolina does not. Since the policy clearly stated that the law of North Carolina applied and the fact that the accident happened in Louisiana was irrelevant. Regardless of the desires of an insured to punish his insurer the contract wording controls the interpretation of an insurance policy.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.