Nasello v. Transit Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-C-0546,88-C-0546 |
| Citation | 530 So.2d 1114 |
| Parties | Katherine H. NASELLO v. TRANSIT CASUALTY COMPANY et al. Brenda BECKHAM v. TRANSIT CASUALTY COMPANY et al. Pauline N. CATALDIE et ux. v. TRANSIT CASUALTY COMPANY et al. 530 So.2d 1114 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Richard Creed, Jr., Hampden R. White, Mathews, Atkinson, Guglielmo, Marks & Day, Baton Rouge, for applicant.
Marc Judice, Kraig T. Strenge, Juneau, Hill, Judice, & Adley P.L.C., Lafayette, for respondent.
In consolidated suits, plaintiffs Katherine Nasello, Brenda Beckham and Pauline Cataldie were awarded $97,500, $5,000 and $97,500 respectively in damages as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident in Evangeline Parish. Transit Casualty Company insured National Car Rental Systems, Inc. and Jorge Gonzales, the negligent driver of the rental car, for the first $100,000 of each plaintiff's damages for bodily injuries, making Transit Casualty the primary carrier before its insolvency. Great Northern Insurance Company insured Gonzales' employer for damages in "excess over any other collectable insurance."
The sole issue presented by this case is whether Great Northern or Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association is responsible for the damages that Transit Casualty is unable to pay due to its insolvency.
The trial judge granted Great Northern's motion for summary judgment on the question, finding that Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association became the primary carrier upon Transit Casualty's insolvency. The court of appeal affirmed. Nasello v. Transit Casualty Company et al., 524 So.2d 1235 (La.App. 3 Cir.1988). We granted writs to consider the propriety of that conclusion.
Act 81, Sec. 1 of 1970 applies to all kinds of direct insurance, except life, health and accident, title, disability, mortgage guaranty and ocean marine insurance. R.S. 22:1377. The legislature's express purpose for creating Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association was to provide:
"... a mechanism for the payment of covered claims under certain insurance policies to avoid excessive delay in payment and to avoid financial loss to claimants or policy holders because of the insolvency of an insurer, to assist in the detection and prevention of insurer insolvencies, and to provide an association to assess the cost of such protection among insurers." R.S. 22:1376.
The legislation creating Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association called for its liberal construction to effect its purpose. R.S. 22:1378. Some forty-two states, including Louisiana, enacted legislation creating such associations between 1969 and 1972. Before that time, only three states had enacted such legislation. Epton and Bixby, Insurance Guaranty Funds: A Reassessment, 25 DePaul L.Rev. 227, 228-229 (1976).
The courts of this state have interpreted the laws to protect claimants and policyholders and to advance their interests rather than the interests of the association and its members. Senac v. Sandefer, 418 So.2d 543 (La.1982); Hickerson v. Protective National Insurance Co. of Omaha, 383 So.2d 377 (La.1980); H & H Sewer Systems, Inc. v. Insurance Guaranty Association, 392 So.2d 430 (La.1980); Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association v. Bernard, 393 So.2d 764 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980).
Great Northern argues that the association should be held responsible for the first $100,000 of each plaintiff's damages, relying on R.S. 22:1382(1)(b). That section provides that Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association shall:
"Be deemed the insurer to the extent of its obligation on the covered claims and to such extent shall have all rights, duties and obligations of the insolvent insurer as if the insurer had not become insolvent."
Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, on the other hand, contends that it should be required to cover claims against insolvent primary carriers only in circumstances where the excess carriers also became insolvent; that is, the association reiterates its position that Great Northern as excess carrier should automatically "drop down" to cover Transit Casualty's exposure, as Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association is the remedy of last resort under R.S. 22:1386. R.S. 22:1386 (1) provides that: "Any person having a claim against an insurer under any provision in an insurance policy ... shall be required to exhaust first his right" under that policy as long as that insurer is solvent. (Emphasis added).
Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association argues that the Great Northern policy provides other collectible insurance in this case. The "other insurance" clause in the Great Northern policy, both parties agree, provides:
(Emphasis added).
The rental car in this case was not owned by Gonzales' employer, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
...that the controlling consideration in resolving this drop down issue is the language of the excess policy. See Nasello v. Transit Casualty Co., 530 So.2d 1114, 1115 (La.1988). In Kelly, we canvassed the federal and state jurisprudence on the drop down issue, and, based on the particular pol......
-
Bernard v. Royal Ins. Co.
...stated that it was not liable below $20,000,000. Its appellate brief specifies $25,000,000. Ms. Bernard cites Nasello v. Transit Casualty Company, 530 So.2d 1114 (La.1988), in which the Other Insurance Clause read in pertinent part: "For any covered auto you do not own, the insurance provid......
-
Black v. Rebstock Drilling Co., Civ. A. No. 84-1454.
...or policyholders because of the insolvency of an insurer ..." La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 22:1376 (West 1993). See also Nasello v. Transit Casualty Co., 530 So.2d 1114, 1115 (La.1988). By its terms, however, the Guaranty Act excludes coverage for "ocean marine" insurance. La. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 22:1377......
-
McWright v. Modern Iron Works, Inc.
...in the Robichaux policy, that case adds a fourth category. AMBIGUITY GENERALLY We agree with Kelly, supra, and Nasello v. Transit Cas. Co., 530 So.2d 1114 (La.1988), which state or suggest there is no ambiguity in a liability insurance contract simply because the contract uses a phrase such......
-
Chapter 5
...v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co., 630 So.2d 759 (La. 1994); Kelly v. Weil, 563 So.2d 221 (La. 1990); Nasello v. Transit Casualty Co., 530 So.2d 1114 (La. 1998). Massachusetts: Gulezian v. Lincoln Insurance Co., 399 Mass. 606, 506 N.E.2d 123 (1987). Ohio: Granger v. Auto Owners Insurance ......
-
CHAPTER 6 Duty to Defend and Insured Litigation
...v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Co., 630 So.2d 759 (La. 1994); Kelly v. Weil, 563 So.2d 221 (La. 1990); Nasello v. Transit Casualty Co., 530 So.2d 1114 (La. 1998). Massachusetts: Gulezian v. Lincoln Insurance Co., 399 Mass. 606, 506 N.E.2d 123 (1987). Ohio: Granger v. Auto Owners Insurance ......