Garces-Rodriguez v. GEICO Indem. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 16–CA–196,16–CA–196
• Citation: 209 So.3d 389
• Parties: Rafael GARCES–RODRIGUEZ and Julio Alonso v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company (Garces) and Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company (Paez)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

209 So.3d 389

Rafael GARCES–RODRIGUEZ and Julio Alonso

v.GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company (Garces) and Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company (Paez)

NO. 16–CA–196

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

December 21, 2016

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, RAFAEL GARCES–RODRIGUEZ AND JULIO ALONSO, Ivan A. Orihuela

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Charles V. Giordano, Michael E. Escudier

Panel composed of Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Marc E. Johnson, and Hans J. Liljeberg

LILJEBERG, J.

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's judgment, granting the motion for summary judgment filed by one of the defendant insurers and dismissing it from this lawsuit. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Jefferson Parish on September 30, 2010. Plaintiffs, Rafael Garces–Rodriguez and Julio Alonso, contend that they were traveling westbound on Interstate 10 in a 1996 Kenworth truck owned by Jose Paez, when their vehicle was struck from behind by a 2004 Toyota Tacoma owned and operated by Christopher Anderson.

On September 28, 2012, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking compensation for their personal injuries and other damages, naming GEICO Indemnity Company and Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company ("Progressive") as defendants. In their petition, plaintiffs assert that at the time of the accident, both Mr. Garces–Rodriguez and Mr. Paez were insured by Progressive. They claim that their Progressive automobile insurance policies provided uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") coverage for the damages they sustained.

On January 7, 2015, Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against it on the grounds that UM coverage was rejected for both of the relevant Progressive insurance policies. It argues that both Progressive policies were issued in Texas and that Texas law should apply in this matter. Progressive asserts that under Texas law, the rejection of UM coverage forms signed by Mr. Garces–Rodriguez and Mr. Paez are both valid and exclude coverage for plaintiffs' UM claims.

Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to Progressive's motion for summary judgment, asserting that Louisiana law should apply in this matter and that the UM rejection forms signed by Mr. Garces–Rodriguez and Mr. Paez are invalid under Louisiana law. They argue that the Progressive policies provide UM coverage for plaintiffs' damages because there was no valid rejection of UM coverage.

Progressive's motion for summary judgment came before the trial court for a hearing on March 2, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the parties additional time to submit memoranda and took the matter under advisement. On April 20, 2015, the trial court signed a judgment granting Progressive's motion for summary judgment.¹ In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found that Louisiana law applies in this matter, and that the UM coverage rejection forms signed by Mr. Garces–Rodriguez and Mr. Paez were sufficient to effect a valid rejection of UM coverage under Louisiana law. Plaintiffs appeal.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

On appeal, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred by granting Progressive's motion for summary judgment, because the two relevant UM rejection forms are invalid under both Louisiana and Texas law. Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana law should apply, because Louisiana's interests in this matter are more substantial and outweigh those of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that the only interest Texas has in this case is that the insurance policies in question were issued in Texas. They list several alleged interests of Louisiana in this case, including that: 1) the accident occurred in Louisiana; 2) the collision occurred between Louisiana residents; 3) plaintiffs received all of their medical treatment in Louisiana; and 4) the two vehicles involved in the accident were registered and garaged in Louisiana.

Next, plaintiffs argue that the UM rejection forms are invalid under Louisiana law, because: 1) Neither of the UM selection forms complied with the form promulgated by the insurance commissioner as required by Louisiana law; 2) there are no initials on the UM selection forms indicating the selections of the insureds; 3) the names of the insureds and the name of the insurance company are not printed on the UM selection forms; 4) none of the exhibits attached to Progressive's motion for summary judgment were certified copies of the insurance policy documents; and 5) Progressive failed to show that the relevant UM selection forms were part of the two Progressive liability policies at issue.

Progressive responds that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in its favor. However, Progressive maintains that Texas law applies in this matter. It claims that Texas has a greater interest than Louisiana in enforcing its policies, because: 1) the vehicles insured under the policies were both garaged in Texas; 2) the policies were issued in Texas; and 3) the insureds resided in Florida, not Louisiana. They further contend that the UM rejection forms are both valid and enforceable, pursuant to Texas law.

Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo , using the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate.

Breaux v. Fresh Start Properties, L.L.C. , 11–262 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/29/11), 78 So.3d 849, 852. On review of a motion for summary judgment, we must determine if there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Whether an insurance policy provides or precludes coverage, as a matter of law, can be resolved within the framework of a motion for summary judgment. Gautreaux v. Dufrene , 04–970 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/11/05), 894 So.2d 385.

La. R.S. 22:1295 (formerly designated as La. R.S. 22:680 ) requires that all automobile liability policies delivered or issued for delivery in Louisiana include UM coverage unless the insured expressly rejects such coverage or chooses a lower limit. In Champagne v. Ward , 03–3211 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So.2d 773, the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that Louisiana's UM statute is applicable to policies "delivered or issued for delivery in this state" and held that Louisiana law does not automatically apply to the interpretation of a foreign UM insurance policy in a multistate case where an accident occurs in Louisiana and involves a Louisiana resident. Rather, the Court stated that in a multistate case, the appropriate starting point is to determine if there is a difference between Louisiana's UM law and the UM law of the foreign state. If so, the Court should conduct a choice of law analysis, as set forth in La. C.C. arts. 3515 and 3537, to determine which state's law applies to the interpretation of the UM policy. Champagne , 893 So.2d at 786.

La. C.C. art. 3515, found within the general provisions governing conflict of laws in the Louisiana Civil Code, provides as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this Book, an issue in a case having contacts with other states is governed by the law of the state whose policies would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied to that issue.

That state is determined by evaluating the strength and pertinence of the relevant policies of all involved states in light of: 1) the relationship of each state to the parties and the dispute; and 2) the policies and needs of the interstate and international systems, including the policies of upholding the justified expectations of parties and of minimizing the adverse consequences that might follow from subjecting a party to the law of more than one state.

La. C.C. art. 3537, regarding conflict of laws within conventional obligations, provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this Title, an issue of conventional obligations is governed by the law of the state whose policies would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied to that issue.

That state is determined by evaluating the strength and pertinence of the relevant policies of the involved states in light of: 1) the pertinent contacts of each state to the parties and the transaction, including the place of negotiation, formation, and performance of the contract, the location of the object of the contract, and the place of domicile, habitual residence, or business of the parties; 2) the nature, type, and purpose of the contract; and 3) the policies referred to in Article 3515, as well as the policies of facilitating the orderly planning of transactions, of promoting multistate commercial intercourse, and of protecting one party from undue imposition by the other.

The issue to be resolved under La. C.C. arts. 3515 and 3537 is which state's policies would be most seriously impaired if its laws were not applied.

Zuviceh v. Nationwide Ins. Co. , 00–773 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/11/01), 786 So.2d 340, 345, writ denied , 01–2141 (La. 11/9/01), 801 So.2d 373.

In Louisiana, there is a strong public interest in providing full recovery for automobile accident victims who suffer damages caused by a tortfeasor who is not covered by adequate liability insurance. Henson v. Safeco Ins. Co. , 585 So.2d 534, 537 (La. 1991). However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has found that other states have an interest in the regulation of the insurance industry conducting business within their borders and in the contractual obligations that are inherent parts thereof. Champagne , 893 So.2d at 788 ; Walker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 42,051 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/07), 954 So.2d 847, 853. In Champagne , the Court indicated that the integrity of the contract is a substantial and real interest. The Court further stated "[t]he fact that Congress has allowed fifty states to have their own uniform system of regulations governing insurance strongly...