Ruiz v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 16 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-CA-0918,90-CA-0918
• Citation: 579 So.2d 1203
• Parties: Arthur RUIZ v. Suzanne M. LEWIS and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. 579 So.2d 1203
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1203

579 So.2d 1203

Arthur RUIZ v. Suzanne M. LEWIS and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company.

No. 90-CA-0918.

579 So.2d 1203

Court of Appeal of Louisiana,

Fourth Circuit.

May 16, 1991.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1991.

Andrew L. Plauche, Jr., Plauche and Maselli, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee William Keith Kerr.

Robert H. Schmolke, Isaac F. Hawkins, III, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellants Arthur Andres Ruiz, Jr. and Patty Lemoine Ruiz.

Before KLEES, BYRNES and WILLIAMS, JJ.

BYRNES, Judge.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court was correct in finding no uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under an excess insurance policy by one group of defendants and in granting a motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against that defendant group with prejudice. We reverse.

On March 13, 1987, Arthur Ruiz, operating a 1985 Chevrolet pickup truck leased by his employer, New Orleans Public Service (NOPSI), sustained injuries in an automobile collision with a 1982 Chevrolet driven by Suzanne M. Lewis at the intersection of LaPlace Street and Louisiana Highway 39 in Chalmette.

The Ruizes sued Suzanne Lewis and her liability insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (providing a $50,000 policy limit); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (as alleged uninsured motorist insurer of Ruiz with a $25,000 policy limit); National Union Fire Insurance Company (as excess liability insurer of Ruiz's employer, providing liability coverage in the amount of $350,000 excess of $250,000 self-insured liability limit of NOPSI); Keith William Kerr, representing certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London (collectively Kerr), subscribing to Insurisk Certificate of coverage No. 1262 (providing excess liability coverage for NOPSI in the amount of $400,000 excess of $600,000). Plaintiffs also sued Employer's Casualty Company as alleged underinsured motorist insurer for Arthur Ruiz under a policy issued by BLC Corporation, as owner of the vehicle leased to NOPSI and operated by Ruiz. In addition, NOPSI intervened for compensation paid to Arthur Ruiz, and Suzanne Lewis filed as plaintiff in reconvention for her own damages.

On March 26, 1990, the trial court issued a judgment granting a motion for summary judgment and dismissing Kerr from the litigation with prejudice based on the finding that a valid rejection of uninsured motorist coverage had been executed by an authorized executive of NOPSI. Plaintiffs appeal that judgment.

On appeal plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Kerr with respect to its excess liability insurance policy based on the following claims: (1) material issues of fact remain concerning the authenticity of the signature on the rejection waiver of UM coverage and the authority of the company officer to sign; (2) the court accepted unsworn and unauthenticated documents as evidence; (3) changes in endorsements in the insurance policy implemented a new policy of insurance for which a new waiver of UM coverage was required but not procured; (4) the UM waiver was ambiguous; and (5) defendant lacked proof regarding a knowing and informed waiver of UM coverage.

To effect a valid rejection of UM coverage under LSA-R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a), the insured or his authorized representative must expressly set forth in a single document that UM coverage is rejected in Louisiana as of a specific date in a particular policy issued or to be issued by the insurer. Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126, 1132 (La.1987); Smith v. Travelers Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 472, 474 (La.App. 1st Cir.1990) writ denied, 564 So.2d 325 (La.1990). The automobile insurer has the burden to prove either rejection or else selection of lower limits if the insurer is to escape the statutory obligation that its policy shall contain UM coverage equal in amount to its bodily injury coverage. Aramburo v. Travelers Ins. Co., 426 So.2d 260, 261 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 433 So.2d 161 (La.1983) and phraseology altered, 438 So.2d 274 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 443 So.2d 1110 (La.1983).

The pertinent UM waiver relative to Kerr's insurance policy, Certificate Number 1262 states:

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S/LONDON AND INSURANCE COMPANIES

LOUISIANA UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST OPTION FORM TO: MIDDLE SOUTH UTILITIES, INC. AND NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC., C/O Middle South Services, Inc., P.O. Box 61000, New Orleans, LA 70161

RE: CERTIFICATE # 1262

We are required to offer excess uninsured motorists coverage in connection with umbrella and excess policies issued in your state.

Please check one of the following based upon your preference:

X 1. I reject excess uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for the umbrella or excess policy in its entirety.

2. I request excess uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage be provided in my unbrella or excess policy.

If you checked item 2, advise what limit is to apply to uninsured/underinsured motorists within the umbrella or excess policy.

NOTE--If you checked item 2, you must carry uninsured/underinsured motorist limits at least equal to the limit carried for automobile liability insurance in your commercial automobile insurance policy AND, the umbrella or excess policy will be subject to additional premium charges.

Please sign, date, retain one copy for your records and return the remaining copies to your agent.

Signature of Named Insured New Orleans Public Service Inc. (handwritten)

Date 5/21/86 (handwritten)

NAME: G.D.M. London (handwritten)

TITLE: EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT

COMPANY: New Orleans Public Service Inc.

Plaintiffs argue that defendant failed to prove that the signature was authentic or that the corporate representative was authorized to sign the UM rejection on behalf of NOPSI. The authenticity of the insured's representative's signature on a rejection of UM coverage is a material issue of fact. Joseph v. Foremost Insurance Company, 532 So.2d 909 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988). Corporate authority may be explicitly or implicitly proved but must be proved by admissible evidence. Thibodeaux v. Burton, 538 So.2d 1001 (La.1989).

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smith v. Travelers Insurance Co., id., 560 So.2d at 474. Where a corporate executive testified that he signed the waiver and had the authority to execute the form, and the affidavit of the corporation's assistant secretary stated that the insurance manager had that authority, the court found a valid waiver without the necessity of a corporate resolution in Delaune v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 529 So.2d 1289 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1988); Meziere v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 560 So.2d 106 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1990).

To support its motion for summary judgment, Kerr attached the transcript of the sworn deposition of William L. Carpenter, Jr., Insurance and Loss Control Manager of NOPSI, the UM rejection form, and...