Safeway Ins. Co. - Miss. v. Nash

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: LANIER, J.
• Citation: Safeway Ins. Co. - Miss. v. Nash, 327 So.3d 1048 (La. App. 2021)
• Decision Date: 04 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2020 CA 1296,2020 CA 1296
• Parties: SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY - MISSISSIPPI v. Eulanda NASH

327 So.3d 1048

SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY - MISSISSIPPI

v.Eulanda NASH

No. 2020 CA 1296

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: JUNE 04, 2021

Michelle D. Brooks, Davis R. Peltier, Thibodaux, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Safeway Insurance Company

Spencer H. Calahan, Byron M. Hutchinson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Eulanda Nash

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

LANIER, J.

In the instant appeal, plaintiff, Safeway Insurance Company-Mississippi ("Safeway") challenges a declaratory judgment setting forth that Louisiana laws applied to the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage ("UM coverage") provided by Safeway to defendant, Eulanda Nash ("Ms. Nash"). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and render.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The underlying accident in this case occurred on October 26, 2018, when Ms. Nash, a Louisiana resident, was operating a 2012 Chevrolet Malibu on S. Choctaw Drive in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, and was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Franklin Lidberg, also a Louisiana resident. According to the record, the 2012 Malibu was owned by Ms. Nash's mother, Bernice Strawder, a resident of Mississippi, and was insured by Safeway pursuant to a contract that Ms. Strawder secured in Mississippi. Following the accident, Safeway filed a petition for declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling that Mississippi law should be applied to the UM coverage provided to Ms. Nash under the Safeway policy.¹ Ms. Nash answered Safeway's petition, and reconvened with her own petition for declaratory judgment, requesting a ruling that Louisiana law, rather than Mississippi law, applies to the case. Ms. Nash acknowledged that the Safeway policy had been negotiated and entered into in Mississippi by her mother Ms. Strawder. However, Ms. Nash noted that she, not her mother, was a party to the litigation and that as a Louisiana resident, who was injured in a wreck caused by another Louisiana resident on Louisiana roads, she has an expectation of protection by and from the laws of Louisiana.

The matter proceeded to hearing on September 16, 2019, at which time the district court heard argument from Safeway's counsel regarding why Mississippi's laws should apply to the UM coverage.² Safeway's counsel argued that the contract between Ms. Strawder and Safeway was a Mississippi contract, written and delivered in Mississippi. Counsel further maintained that the 2012 Malibu was registered and garaged in Mississippi and that although Ms. Nash is a Louisiana resident, the Safeway policy was not purchased by her or for her. After considering counsel's arguments, the district court found that the interests of Louisiana were much stronger than the interests of Mississippi and that Louisiana law would apply. Judgment was signed accordingly on September 8, 2020. Safeway appeals, assigning error to the district court's finding that the laws of Louisiana are applicable to this case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

At issue in the present case is the interpretation of the UM coverage afforded to Ms. Nash by the Safeway policy. As previously indicated, Ms. Nash argued that Louisiana law applies, and Safeway alleged that Mississippi law applies. The district court rendered a judgment, which comports with the application of Louisiana law. Determining the proper choice-of-law law to be applied to an issue is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo . Ross and Wallace Paper Products, Inc. v. Team Logistics, Inc. , 2019-0196 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/8/20), 308 So.3d 346, 352, writ denied, 2020-00989 (La. 11/4/20), 303 So.3d 641.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In Champagne v. Ward , 2003-3211 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So.2d 773, 775, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Louisiana law does not automatically apply to UM claims under a policy issued in another state, even though a Louisiana resident is involved in the accident and the accident occurs in Louisiana. Rather, the appropriate starting point in a multistate case is to first determine that there is a difference between Louisiana's law and the law of the foreign state and then to conduct a choice-of-law analysis, as codified in Book IV of the Civil Code, to determine which state's law applies to the interpretation of the UM policy. Champagne , 893 So.2d at 786.

Louisiana Civil Code article 3515 provides:

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 the 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.

Louisiana Civil Code article 3537 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 the 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.

Louisiana's choice-of-law provisions, as set forth above, afford the balancing of competing interests between states. Article 3515 instructs the court to examine the relationship of each state to the parties and the dispute. Article 3537 invites analysis of the nature, type, and purpose of the contract. Because the instant accident occurred in Louisiana, but involved a vehicle that was garaged in Mississippi and was covered by a UM policy that was written and delivered in Mississippi, we must look to Louisiana and Mississippi law, as it is relevant to the facts of this case. The issue to be resolved is which state's policies would be most seriously impaired if its laws were not applied. La. Civ. Code arts. 3515 and 3537. "Applying these principles, Louisiana courts generally choose the law of the state in which the insurance policy in question was issued to govern the interpretation of the terms of the policy." Woodfield v. Bowman , 193 F.3d 354, 360 (5th Cir. 1999). As explained more fully below, these principles lead us to conclude that Mississippi law should apply in the instant case.

We note that profound competing public policies and interests exist between the states of Louisiana and Mississippi in this case. The purpose of Louisiana's UM legislation is to promote full recovery for innocent automobile accident victims by mandating minimum liability insurance coverage and making such coverage available when the tortfeasor is uninsured or underinsured. See La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(i) ; see also Martin v. Champion Ins. Co. , 95-0030 (La. 6/30/95), 656 So.2d 991, 994. Factors supporting Louisiana's strong interest in promoting full recovery for innocent automobile accident victims are: (1) there are economic interests involved, which include costs of medical care (which are more likely to be paid if there is sufficient insurance); (2) there is significant involvement of the facilities of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and the judicial system; and (3) the issuing states of the insurance policy often have credit and reduction provisions in their UM coverage, thereby reducing limits and serving to prevent full recovery by the innocent accident victims. Zuviceh v. Nationwide Ins. Co. , 2000-0773 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/11/01), 786 So.2d 340, 345, writ denied, 2001-2141 (La. 11/9/01), 801 So.2d 373. Any credit reducing the UM limits by...