Safeway Ins. Co. - Miss. v. Nash
| Decision Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020 CA 1296,2020 CA 1296 |
| Citation | 327 So.3d 1048 |
| Parties | SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY - MISSISSIPPI v. Eulanda NASH |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
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.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial