96-1352 La.App. 4 Cir. 3/5/97, Daigle v. Allstate Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1997
• Citation: 96-1352 La.App. 4 Cir. 3/5/97, Daigle v. Allstate Ins. Co., 690 So.2d 261 (La. App. 1997)
• Parties: 96-1352 La.App. 4 Cir
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 261

690 So.2d 261

96-1352 La.App. 4 Cir. 3/5/97

Deborah DAIGLE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 96-CA-1352.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

March 5, 1997.

Writ Denied May 1, 1997.

Ricci & Giepert, Jack A. Ricci, Gary J. Giepert, New Orleans, for Plaintiff-Appellee Deborah Daigle.

Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, John T. Culotta, Metairie, for Defendant-Appellant Allstate Insurance Company.

Before SCHOTT, C.J., and BARRY and KLEES, JJ.

[96-1352 La.App. 4 Cir. 1] KLEES, Judge.

Allstate Insurance Company, defendant, appeals the judgment of the district court, holding the company liable for higher limits of uninsured motorist coverage than originally designated for the policy covering plaintiff Deborah Daigle. Upon our review of the record, we reverse.

On September 9, 1991, Deborah Daigle was in an automobile accident with Melissa Stierwald. Stierwald and her insurer, State Farm, settled with Daigle for the State Farm policy limits. However, Daigle had incurred damages greater than those limits.

Daigle's insurer, Allstate, is therefore next in line to cover Daigle's damages. The issue in dispute is the extent of Allstate's liability.

When Deborah's father, to whom the policy was issued, signed up with Allstate, he executed a selection of lower limits of uninsured motorist coverage. Normally, under such a policy, UM coverage would be $100,000/$300,000; Mr. Daigle signed a form providing that he would instead accept lower limits of $5000/$10,000. He signed this form on December 8, 1987. At this time, his family owned four automobiles.

Between this election of lower limits and the accident in question, however, the Daigles made various changes in their policy. Specifically, they sold several cars and purchased several others; sales and purchases were not always made simultaneously. However, at no time did the Daigles insure more than the original four vehicles. Also, another driver was added to the policy: Deborah's brother, Edgar Daigle III.

When Allstate only offered coverage under the original, lower limits, Daigle filed suit against Allstate, arguing that the alterations in her family's drivers and [96-1352 La.App. 4 Cir. 2] automobiles constituted material changes that created a new policy--in which case, a separate selection of lower coverage limits would have been required. Allstate argued that the vehicle changes made to the policy in that time were only substitutions, and thus the Daigle's policy was sustained as a renewal policy, one in which the original selection of lower limits remained valid.

Both Daigle and Allstate moved for summary judgment on the issue of coverage limits; the district court ruled in favor of Daigle, finding that cars had been added to the policy and not deleted, and therefore were additions rather than substitutions. A separate selection of lower limits would have been necessary; since there was no such selection, the district court ruled that the higher limits of coverage were effective. From this judgment Allstate appeals.

An initial rejection or selection of lower limits of UM coverage is valid for renewal, reinstatement and/or substitute policies, and the insurer is therefore absolved from greater UM liability for such policies. See Allen v. State Farm, 617 So.2d 1308, 1312 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993), Bryant v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 579 So.2d 1241 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991).

Not every alteration in an insurance policy or insurer's position mandates that an insurance policy be considered new, rather than a renewal. Lovoi v. Ladreyt, 94-1002 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/12...