Block v. Reliance Ins. Co.

Citation433 So.2d 1040
Decision Date23 May 1983
Docket Number82-C-2083,Nos. 82-C-1956,s. 82-C-1956
PartiesRichard A. BLOCK v. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY. Davetta Caughey FARIA and Roy Dunscomb Gregory Caughey v. Karl Randall SMOAK, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Casualty Reciprocal Exchange.
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

Page 1040

433 So.2d 1040
Richard A. BLOCK
v.
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Davetta Caughey FARIA and Roy Dunscomb Gregory Caughey
v.
Karl Randall SMOAK, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company and Casualty Reciprocal Exchange.
Nos. 82-C-1956, 82-C-2083.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
May 23, 1983.

Charles Hanemann, Henderson, Hanemann & Morris, Houma, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 82-C-1956.

John Nickerson Chappius, Voorhies & Labbe, Lafayette, for respondent in No. 82-C-1956.

Byron A. Richie, C. Vernon Richie, Richie & Richie, Shreveport, for applicant in No. 82-C-2083.

Page 1041

James P. Bodenheimer, Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons, Harry A. Johnson, Jr., Lunn, Irion, Switzer, Johnson & Salley, Shreveport, for respondents in No. 82-C-2083.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

These two consolidated cases raise the issue of whether the plaintiffs are entitled to combine the uninsured motorist coverage on each of the multiple vehicles listed in their policies. The policies were issued prior to the passage of Act 623 of 1977, the "anti-stacking" amendment, while the accidents occurred after the effective date of the provision. Both appellate courts ruled in favor of the insurance companies, holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to "stack" their uninsured motorist coverage.

The facts are not in dispute in either case. On November 19, 1977 plaintiff, Richard A. Block, was involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle owned and driven by John Messer, an uninsured motorist. At the time of the accident plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Offshore Services and Transportation, Inc. Plaintiff was driving his own pickup truck which was insured under a fleet policy by defendant, Reliance Insurance Company. The policy, issued on December 1, 1976 for a one year period, covered at least thirty-four vehicles and provided uninsured motorist coverage of $5000/$10,000 for each insured vehicle. The named insureds were listed as Louis J. Michot & Associates, Inc., Billy M. Corporation and Louis J. Michot, Jr., individually. According to the endorsements, Richard Block and his 1975 Ford Courier and his 1975 Chevrolet truck were added to the fleet policy as additional interests on July 15, 1977. 1 At his deposition, Block stated that even though he was added to the company policy, he paid for his insurance coverage himself. 2

The endorsement adding Richard Block to the policy reads asfollows:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Block brought suit against Reliance Insurance Company, alleging recovery of $170,000 under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy. The trial court concluded

Page 1042

that the collision was caused by the negligence of the uninsured motorist, and rendered judgment in favor of Block and against Reliance. Even though plaintiff's damages were assessed in the amount of $66,000, the trial court only awarded Block judgment of $5000 against Reliance, holding that plaintiff was not entitled to "stack" the multiple uninsured motorist coverages. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. Block v. Reliance Insurance Company, 417 So.2d 29 (La.App.1982).

The other case involves a similar factual situation. Plaintiffs, Davetta Caughey Faria and Roy Dunscomb Gregory Caughey, sought damages for the wrongful deaths of their parents, Walter and Ruth Caughey, who were killed in an automobile accident on December 1, 1977. The decedents were involved in a head-on collision with Karl Randall Smoak, an underinsured motorist, who was driving his automobile in the wrong lane of the highway. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, defendant, had issued a family combination automobile policy to the decedents effective from May 14, 1977 to May 14, 1978, providing uninsured motorist coverage in the amounts of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident for each of the three vehicles owned by the decedents. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against Casualty Reciprocal Exchange in the amount of $40,000 3 and allowed the "stacking" of the uninsured motorist benefits. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the finding of the trial court and denied the "stacking" of the insurance coverage. Faria v. Smoak, 416 So.2d 132 (La.App.1982).

R.S. 22:1406(D), the uninsured motorist statute, provides that automobile liability insurance, delivered or issued for delivery in Louisiana, with respect to vehicles registered or principally garaged here, shall contain coverage for the protection of insureds who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles because of injury, unless such coverage has been rejected. The object of the statute is to promote recovery of adequate damages for innocent automobile accident victims by making uninsured motorist coverage available for their benefit as primary protection when the tortfeasor is without insurance, and as additional or excess coverage when he is inadequately insured. Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 425 So.2d 224, 226 (La.1982); Bond v. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 407 So.2d 401 (La.1981); Niemann v. Travelers Insurance Co., 368 So.2d 1003 (La.1979). The intent of uninsured motorist coverage is "to protect the insured at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • Sharp v. Daigre
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 16 May 1989
    ... ...         Richard L. Edrington, LaPlace, for defendant and appellee-Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co ...         James M. Funderburk, Houma, for defendant and appellee-Acceptance Ins ... Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126 (La.1987); Block v. Reliance Insurance Company, 433 So.2d 1040 (La.1983); Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance ... ...
  • Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 4 June 1999
    ... ... 3, 702 So.2d at 688 ... Any policy provision that narrows or restricts statutorily-mandated coverage will not be enforced. Block v. Reliance Ins. Co., 433 So.2d 1040, 1044 (La.1983) ... An insurer is not at liberty to limit its liability and impose conditions upon its ... ...
  • Segura v. Frank
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 14 January 1994
    ... ... 9] and Louisiana Constitutions. 17 See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 609 So.2d 809, 816 n. 11 (La.1992); Board of Comm'rs v. Dept. of Natural Resources, ... South Lafourche Tidal Control Levee Dist., 445 So.2d 1221, 1224 (La.1984); Block v. Reliance Ins. Co., 433 So.2d 1040, 1044 (La.1983); Lott v. Haley, 370 So.2d 521, 523 (La.1979); ... ...
  • 25,770 La.App. 2 Cir. 6/24/94, Sledge v. Continental Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 24 June 1994
    ... ... 3d Cir.1993); Building Specialties, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 440 So.2d 984 (La.App. 3d Cir.1983). Such phraseology provides a criterion based on the ... Block v. Reliance Ins. Co., 433 So.2d 1040 (La.1983) ...         To read "an act ... in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT