Courville v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 80-C-1704

• Decision Date: 26 January 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-C-1704,80-C-1704
• Citation: Courville v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 393 So.2d 703 (La. 1981)
• Parties: Joseph A. COURVILLE, Sr. et al v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 703

393 So.2d 703

Joseph A. COURVILLE, Sr. et al v.STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 80-C-1704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 1981.

Patrick C. Morrow, James P. Ryan, Morrow & Morrow, Opelousas, for plaintiff-applicant.

Norman Foret, McBride & Brewster, Lafayette, for defendant-respondent.

BLANCHE, Justice.

Plaintiffs, a major child and his father, filed suit to recover medical expenses, pain and suffering, and property damage, caused by an automobile accident which occurred late at night on February 12, 1978 in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana.Joseph A. Courville, Jr., the major child living with his parents, was driving his father's 1964 GMC pickup truck when he was hit by an automobile driven by Danny P. Richard, an uninsured motorist.Plaintiffs sued Danny P. Richard, Danny P. Richard's father, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company(hereinafter referred to as State Farm), from whom they had purchased uninsured motorist coverage.

Plaintiffs sought recovery against State Farm on two policies, one covering the 1964 GMC pickup truck, and the second covering a 1968 Oldsmobile also owned by Joseph A. Courville, Sr.Each policy had an uninsured motorist limit of $10,000.State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment denying that the plaintiffs were entitled to "stack" the limits of the two policies, which was tentatively denied by the trial judge.

At the trial on the merits, the defendants stipulated to their liability and to property damage in the amount of $850.The only issue given to the jury was damages due to Joseph A. Courville, Jr.The jury returned a verdict in his favor for $30,000.The trial judge ruled that the plaintiffs could stack the two $10,000 policies, resulting in State Farm being cast in judgment for $20,000.

State Farm appealed and the Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the decision but amended it as to State Farm, holding that the plaintiffs could not "stack" and, thus, the judgment against State Farm was limited to $10,000.Plaintiffs sought this writ, which we granted, under the jurisdiction of the 1974 La.Const., art. 5, § 5.

The issue is whether the plaintiffs can "stack" the uninsured motorist coverage provided by the two policies issued to them by State Farm.We find that they may do so in this situation; thus, we reverse the Third Circuit's amendment and hold State Farm liable for a total of $20,000.

Act 623 of 1977 amended R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(c), relative to uninsured motorist insurance, to prohibit stacking except under certain designated circumstances.The Act became effective on September 9, 1977.Both policies were issued prior to the effective date of the Act the policy covering the GMC pickup was originally dated December 15, 1970, and the policy covering the Oldsmobile automobile was originally dated July 19, 1973.However, each policy is issued for only six months and then renewed for subsequent six-month periods unless the insurer or insured decides not to renew the policy.Thus, there is no absolute right to insurance beyond six months.Since the initial insurance contract is limited to that six-month term, each subsequent renewal is a separate contract, even though a new policy is not involved.Fontenot v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 119 So.2d 588(La.App. 1st Cir.1960).Both policies were renewed after the effective date of the Act and were in effect when the accident occurred.Thus, we agree with the Third Circuit that the renewal of the two policies may be seen as a new contract and they are subject to the laws at that time namely, R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(c), as amended.

Nevertheless, turning to that amended Act and applying it to the present situation, we must disagree with the Third Circuit.In pertinent part, the Act is as follows:

"(c) If the insured has any limits of uninsured motorist coverage in a policy of automobile liability insurance, in accordance with the terms of Subsection D(1), then such limits of...