Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co.

Decision Date27 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–31273.,12–31273.
Citation741 F.3d 604
PartiesClyde BOYETT, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants v. REDLAND INSURANCE CO., Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit


Paul B. Wilkins (argued), Law Offices of Paul B. Wilkins, Columbia, LA, for PlaintiffsAppellants.

Donald J. Armand, Jr. (argued), Attorney, Pettiette, Armand, Dunkelman, Woodley, Byrd & Cromwell, L.L.P., Shreveport, LA, for DefendantAppellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

WIENER, Circuit Judge:

In this diversity case, PlaintiffsAppellants Clyde Boyett (Boyett) and his wife, Annie Boyett (together, the Boyetts), seek to recover damages for injuries Boyett incurred in an accident. Recovery is sought against DefendantAppellee Redland Insurance Company (Redland) under an insurance policy Redland issued to Boyett's employer, Boeuf River Ventures (“Boeuf River”). The district court granted Redland's summary judgment motion after determining that the Boyetts could not avail themselves of uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits provided by Title 22, Section 1295 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes (Section 1295). Although the district court concluded that Section 1295 applies to the North Carolina accident, it ruled that the offending uninsured machine, a forklift, was not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of that law. On appeal, the Boyetts contend that the district court erred in precluding UM coverage on the ground that the uninsured forklift that caused the accident was not a “motor vehicle.” We hold that a forklift is a “motor vehicle” within the contemplation of Section 1295's identification of the uninsured or underinsured vehicle, and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


The material facts in this case are simple. Boeuf River employed Boyett as a truck driver. In March 2009, Boyett was driving a flatbed tractor-trailer for Boeuf River hauling a load of lumber for delivery to Carolina Lumber & Brick, Ltd. (Carolina Lumber) in North Carolina. Boeuf River maintained insurance on the tractor-trailer under a commercial lines policy which provided “Auto” 1 liability coverage. The policy, which was issued in Louisiana, did not include any provisions whatsoever relating to UM coverage. Neither was a waiver of statutory UM coverage executed pursuant to Louisiana law appended to the policy.2 The parties agree that Boyett was an insured under that policy.

The accident occurred in North Carolina when, while an employee of Carolina Lumber was using a forklift to unload the lumber from the tractor-trailer, some of it fell, striking and severely injuring Boyett. He underwent surgery in an attempt to save his right foot. That surgery was unsuccessful, however, and he underwent further surgery to remove the lower portion of his right leg.

The Boyetts filed suit against Redland in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging that the forklift was an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 1295 and that, pursuant to Louisiana law, they were entitled to statutory UM benefits under Redland's policy. Redland answered, then moved for summary judgment, claiming that (1) the policy did not provide liability coverage for the North Carolina accident, and (2) Louisiana statutory UM coverage was unavailable to the Boyetts because the offending forklift was not an uninsured “motor vehicle” as the term is used in Section 1295(1)(a)(i). The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Redland, ruling that the policy did not provide liability coverage.3 As to statutory UM coverage, however, the court ruled that Redland had failed to meet its summary judgment burden and denied the motion on that issue, reserving to Redland the right to re-urge it at a later time.

The court subsequently held a status conference with the parties to discuss whether the case could be disposed of on motions practice.4 Following that conference, Redland re-urged its motion for summary judgment with respect to statutory UM coverage. The district court considered Redland's re-urged motion, then held that (1) Louisiana's UM statute applies to the Louisiana-issued policy even though the accident occurred in North Carolina, but (2) the offending forklift is not a “motor vehicle” for the purposes of that statute. The district court ruled that the Boyetts were not entitled to statutory UM benefits and dismissed their action. They timely filed a notice of appeal with respect to the district court's holding on statutory UM coverage.

A. Standard of Review and Special Louisiana Erie Considerations

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court.5 Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 6 When reviewing a summary judgment, we construe all the evidence and make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.7 We are “not limited to the district court's reasons for its grant of summary judgment” and “may affirm the district court's summary judgment on any ground raised below and supported by the record.” 8

When, as in this case, subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity, federal courts apply the substantive law of the forum state—here, Louisiana.9 To determine the forum state's law, we look first to the final decisions of that state's highest court—here, the Louisiana Supreme Court.10 In the absence of a determinative decision by that court on the issue of law before us, we must determine, in our best judgment, how we believe that court would resolve the issue.11 As the Louisiana Supreme Court has not addressed whether (1) the state's UM statute applies to out-of-state accidents or (2) a forklift can be the uninsured or underinsured “motor vehicle” within the meaning of Section 1295, the district court had to make an Erie guess” as to these two issues.12 On appeal, we must do the same and do so de novo.13

In making our Erie guess in this case, we must employ Louisiana's civilian methodology in the same manner as would the Louisiana Supreme Court. 14 As we have previously explained, [u]nder Louisiana's Civil Code, the only authoritative ‘sources of law are legislation and custom.’ 15 Indeed, in Louisiana [l]egislation is a solemn expression of legislative will.” 16 Thus, we must look first to Louisiana's Constitution, its codes, and statutes, because the ‘primary basis of law for a civilian is legislation, and not (as in the common law) a great body of tradition in the form of prior decisions of the courts.’ 17 Unlike in common law systems, [s]tare decisis is foreign to the Civil Law, including Louisiana.” 18 Nevertheless, “in cases such as this[,] we are guided by decisions rendered by the Louisiana appellate courts, particularly when numerous decisions are in accord on a given issue”—i.e., jurisprudence constante19“but we are not strictly bound by them.” 20

B. Whether the Louisiana UM Statute Applies to Out–of–State Accidents

On appeal, the Boyetts assert that the district court “correctly” determined that the UM statute applies to this accident, even though it occurred in North Carolina. Although it did not appeal that holding, Redland insists that Section 1295 does not extend to out-of-state accidents. 21 If Redland is correct on this point, then we need not reach the Boyetts' contention that a forklift can be an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. We therefore consider first whether the district court correctly concluded that the statute may apply to accidents that occur outside of Louisiana.

“Louisiana statutory law provides for UM coverage for the purpose of providing ‘full recovery for automobile accident victims who suffer damages caused by a tortfeasor who is not covered by adequate liability insurance.’ 22 Thus, “UM coverage will be read into any automobile liability policy ‘unless validly rejected.’ 23 As it is undisputed that Redland's policy was issued in Louisiana and that there was no valid rejection of statutory UM coverage, the Boyetts are entitled to statutory UM coverage by operation of law unless they are otherwise divested of or precluded from asserting such entitlements.

In support of its claim that Louisiana statutory UM coverage is not available for out-of-state accidents, Redland points to Section 1295(1)(a)(iii), which states: “This Subparagraph and its requirements for uninsured motorist coverage shall apply to any liability insurance covering any accident which occurs in this state and involves a resident of this state.” Redland argues that this provision serves as a “geographic limitation” which prevents the UM statute from applying to accidents that occur outside of Louisiana. The district court rejected this characterization of Section 1295(1)(a)(iii), concluding that it “will only come into play where there is a foreign policy and each prong of the conjunctive amendment is met.” Both the history and the plain language of the UM statute confirm the propriety of the district court's conclusion that Section 1295 may extend to out-of-state accidents.24

Prior to 1987, the UM statute 25 explicitly addressed “insurance [policies] delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state.” 26 The Louisiana Supreme Court analyzed the scope of this language in Snider v. Murray.27 In Snider, the relevant insurance policy was issued and delivered in Texas by a Texas agent to the insured—Jerry Snider (“Snider”)—who was domiciled in Texas; the vehicle listed in the policy was principally garaged in Texas. Snider then moved to Louisiana, where the accident occurred. Snider's widow and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Union Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • September 29, 2018
    ...(5th Cir. 2014) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ). See also Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co. , 741 F.3d 604, 607 (5th Cir. 2014) (court held that "when subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity, federal courts apply the substantive law o......
  • Wilson v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic Prison
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 23, 2016
    ...affirm the district court's summary judgment on any ground raised below and supported by the record.” (quoting Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co. , 741 F.3d 604, 606–07 (5th Cir. 2014) )); Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A. , 691 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e can affirm ... on any ground suppor......
  • McCoy v. McCormick
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • February 15, 2023
    ... ... La. 2013) (citing ... Rogers v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 167 ... F.3d 933, 937 (5th Cir. 1999)). Rule 55 provides, in ... pertinent part, ... the forum state. See Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co. , 741 ... F.3d 604, 607 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Erie R. Co. v ... ...
  • Campo v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • December 23, 2021
    ...Court on the issue for which the government has cited it, is not binding on this Court." Id. at 7-8 (citing Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co., 741 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2014); Bergeron v. Richardson, 320 So.3d 1109 (La. 2021)). Plaintiffs argue there is no judicially established "rule of property" 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