Harris v. Guitterez
| Decision Date | 08 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CA-2929,CA-2929 |
| Citation | 469 So.2d 1135 |
| Parties | Lois HARRIS, individually, and as tutrix of the estate of her minor child, Bernita Harris v. Maria I. GUITTEREZ, United Services Automobile Association and Allstate Insurance Company. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Johnston & Duplass, Steven B. Witman, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Allstate Ins. Co.
Page McClendon Michell, Porteous, Hainkel, Johnson & Sarpy, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants Maria I. Guitterez, Lisa Radosta, and United Services Automobile Ass'n.
Before GULOTTA, KLEES and J. CIACCIO, JJ.
This appeal arises out of an automobile collision involving three vehicles, one of which fled the scene immediately after the accident and was never located. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff, Lois Harris, was driving a vehicle owned by her mother, Daisy Edinburgh. Mrs. Harris sued claiming personal injuries to herself and her teenage daughter, Bernita Harris, who was a passenger in the car. Defendants included Lisa Radosta, the driver of the third vehicle; United Services Automobile Association (U.S.A.A.), the liability insurer of the vehicle operated by Radosta; and Allstate Insurance Company, the uninsured motorist carrier for the vehicle driven by Harris.
Allstate and its insured then filed a third party demand against U.S.A.A. for indemnification and/or contribution should it be cast in judgment to the plaintiff. In addition, Allstate asked for recovery of approximately $1,000 it had allegedly paid to its insured to repair property damage to the insured's vehicle.
After a full trial on the merits, the jury found that plaintiff's injuries were caused jointly by Lisa Radosta and the driver of the unknown vehicle, with Radosta being 60% liable and the unknown driver 40% liable. In accordance with this verdict, the district court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Lisa Radosta, U.S.A.A. and Allstate, in solido, and in favor of Allstate on its third party demand against U.S.A.A. for 60% of any sums that Allstate might be required to pay plaintiff under the judgment. Thus, in effect, U.S.A.A. was required to pay 60% of plaintiff's damages (as the insurer of Radosta, who was 60% at fault), and Allstate the remaining 40% (as the uninsured motorist carrier of plaintiff, to cover the liability of the phantom vehicle).
Subsequently, on motion of Allstate, the trial court reformed the judgment to exclude the liability of Allstate, holding that because U.S.A.A.'s policy coverage was sufficient to cover the entire amount of the judgment, the uninsured motorist policy did not come into play. U.S.A.A. and its insured have appealed from this reformed judgment. The sole issue on appeal is whether, in this situation, an uninsured motorist carrier is liable for damages only if the policy limits of the insured motorist are insufficient to satisfy the judgment. We find that the trial judge erred in reforming his original judgment, and we therefore reverse.
There are three cases pertinent to the determination of this issue. In 1967, the First Circuit held in Fouquier v. Travelers Ins. Co., 204 So.2d 400 (1st Cir.1967), that when an uninsured motorist is solidarily liable with an insured motorist and the insurance in effect is valid, enforceable and sufficient to pay the judgment realized by the plaintiff, the provision in the plaintiff's policy giving coverage in the event of damage by an uninsured motorist does not apply. Like the instant case, the Fouquier case also involved three vehicles, with one of the tortfeasors being insured and one uninsured.
Subsequent to Fouquier, in Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575 (La.1982), the Supreme Court held that the tortfeasor and the uninsured motorist carrier of the victim are solidarily liable to the victim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theriot v. Bergeron
...carrier from paying any part of the damages incurred by plaintiffs. This Court followed the decision of the court in Harris v. Guitterez, 469 So.2d 1135 (La.App. 4 Cir.1985) in rendering its original judgment; consequently, this Court sees no reason to amend its LEGAL ANALYSIS Capital is co......
-
Babineaux v. Domingue
...by Hoefly and its progeny. Carona, supra; Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 425 So.2d 224 (La.1982); Harris v. Guitterez, 469 So.2d 1135 (La. App. 4th Cir.1985); Perrilloux v. Bowser, 483 So.2d 1135 (La.App. 5th Cir.1986). Accordingly, following the Hoefly decision, the judgment ......
-
Perrilloux v. Bowser
...REVERSED AND RECAST. 1 We thus also agree with the Fourth Circuit, which adopted the Farnsworth rationale in Harris v. Guitterez, 469 So.2d 1135 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985). ...
-
Rutkowski v. State
...bound in solido with the uninsured motorist tortfeasor and a joint tortfeasor for the tort victim's damages. See Harris v. Guitterez, 469 So.2d 1135 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985) and Farnsworth v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 442 So.2d 1340 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983). Hoefly, supra, was cited as a......