Rushing v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 7524,7524 |
| Citation | 216 So.2d 875 |
| Parties | Hatten L. RUSHING et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Ronald L. Causey, of Scullin & Causey, Baton Rouge, for appellants.
Charles W. Franklin, of Franklin & Keogh, Baton Rouge, for appellees.
Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and BAILES, JJ.
Plaintiffs Hatten L. Rushing, Jr. and William G. Bridges were injured in an accident while riding in a 1963 Ford truck owned and operated by Rushing. The other vehicle involved in the accident was uninsured.
Mr. Rushing was also the owner of a Chevrolet automobile which was insured by Allstate, and which furnished uninsured motorist protection. There was no policy of insurance in effect covering the Ford truck.
Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that since the vehicle in which plaintiffs were riding was not insured by it, there was no coverage. The motion was maintained and the suit dismissed as to Allstate. From the judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs have appealed.
The following exclusionary clause, applicable to the uninsured motorists feature, appears in the policy:
'This policy does not apply * * * to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile (other than an insured automobile) owned by the named insured * * *'
Obviously, if the above provision is valid, there would be no coverage under the policy sued on, since Rushing's car was owned by him and was not insured. It is equally obvious that, were it not for the provision, plaintiff Rushing could recover, since there is no other language in the policy limiting the right of recovery under the circumstances of this case.
Plaintiffs contend that the above exclusion contravenes the provisions of R.S. 22:1406(D), which provides as follows:
'(1) No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto, in not less than the limits described in the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law of Louisiana, under provisions filed with and approved by the Commissioner of Insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 73--20
...authority. Further the Owens court did not rationalize its result. It simply concurred in the result reached in Rushing v. Allstate Insurance Co., 216 So.2d 875 (La.App.1968); National Union Indemnity Co. v. Hodges, 238 So.2d 673 (Fla.Ct.App.1970); McElyea v. Safeway Insurance Co., 131 Ill.......
-
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 17675-PR
...2 First, the three cases relied upon by the court in Owens have subsequently been effectively overruled: Rushing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 So.2d 875 (La.App.1968) overruled by Elledge v. Warren, supra; National Union Indem. Co. v. Hodges, 238 So.2d 673 (Fla.App.1970) overruled by Mullis v. ......
-
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona
...The appellant is awarded costs and attorneys fees on appeal. BIRDSALL, C.J., and HOWARD, J., concur. 1 Rushing v. Allstate Insurance Company, 216 So.2d 875 (La.App.1968), was overruled by Elledge v. Warren, supra. National Union Indemnity Co. v. Hodges, 238 So.2d 673 (Fla.App.1970), was ove......
-
Touchette v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 42062
...a piecemeal whittling away of liability for injuries caused by uninsured motorists. (Italics ours.) Contra: Rushing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 So.2d 875 (La.App.1968); Owens v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 15 Ariz.App. 181, 487 P.2d 402 (1971); McElyea v. Safeway Ins. Co., Ill.App., 266 N.E.2d 146 ......