Seaton v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 08 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 57773,57773 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 731 |
| Parties | Tommie Joe SEATON v. Conrad E. KELLY et al. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Gist, Methvin & Trimble, Alexandria, for defendant-applicants.
Cora R. Schley, James S. Gravel, Alexandria, for plaintiff-respondent.
On August 18, 1973 plaintiff, Seaton, was a guest passenger in a Ford Courier pickup truck owned and operated by Conrad E. Kelly when it collided with a left turning vehicle owned and occupied by Lod Hayes, Sr. and driven by Lod Hayes, Jr. The trial court concluded that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of Lod Hayes, Jr., an uninsured motorist. The trial court found that the plaintiff sustained damages in the amount of $37,283.65 consisting of $35,000 in general damages and loss of wages and $2,283.65 in medical expenses.
At the time of the accident State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company had in force an automobile liability insurance policy issued to Conrad E. Kelly which described the Ford Courier truck involved in the accident. This policy provided uninsured motorist coverage of $5,000 per person $10,000 per occurrence) which applied to any occupant of the insured vehicle. Pursuant to this coverage State Farm admitted liability for $5,000 under the uninsured motorist provisions and $2,283.65 under the medical expense coverage. In addition, Government Employees Insurance Company had issued plaintiff, Seaton, policies on two automobiles owned by him with uninsured motorist coverage of $5,000 per person on each. Pursuant to this coverage Government Employees was cast for the $5,000 per person limit under both policies and did not appeal.
State Farm also has a separate policy issued to Conrad E. Kelly on a 1968 Volkswagen automobile which provides uninsured motorist coverage of $5,000 per person. The trial court awarded plaintiff the $5,000 coverage on this policy as well. On appeal the Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the award of this coverage. 327 So.2d 512 (1976). We granted writs to review the correctness of this decision.
State Farm contends that the plaintiff passenger can not recover under the uninsured motorist coverage applicable to the Volkswagen automobile because as to the policy covering the Volkswagen, plaintiff is not an 'insured.' The Volkswagen policy provides in pertinent part:
'PART IV--PROTECTION AGAINST UNINSURED MOTORISTS
'insured' means:
(a) the named insured and any relative;
(b) any other person while occupying an insured automobile;
'insured automobile' means:
(a) an automobile described in the policy for which a specific premium charge indicates that coverage is afforded . . .'
The Third Circuit did not treat the definition of 'insured automobile' and accordingly held that since the Volkswagen was 'an insured automobile,' plaintiff was an 'insured.' (It is conceded that Seaton was not a 'relative' within the terms of the policy). In addition, the court was of the opinion that State Farm's contention was contrary to the jurisprudence dealing with 'stacking.' See e.g. Graham v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., 261 La. 85, 259 So.2d 22 (1972); Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 686, 260 So.2d 669 (1972); Barbin v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 315 So.2d 754 (La.1975); Wilkinson v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 298 So.2d 915 (La.App.3d Cir. 1974).
The issue here is not whether plaintiff can 'stack' the uninsured motorist coverages on the two policies issued to Kelly. The question of 'stacking' only arises once it is determined that the person seeking to cumulate benefits on two or more uninsured motorist coverages is an insured under the terms of those policies. The mandatory uninsured motorist coverage of R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a) provides in part:
'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, . . . For the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom; . . .' (Emphasis added).
Graham and Deane, supra, stand for the proposition that the uninsured motorist statute embodies public policy and, thus, any clause in derogation of the mandatory requirements set forth in the statute is invalid insofar as it conflicts therewith. however, R.S. 22:1406 requires that insurance policies provide uninsured motorist coverage only for persons insured under the policy. The clear intent of Graham and Deane is that if a plaintiff is an insured under two or more policies or one policy covering two or more automobiles, pays premiums or has premiums paid for his benefit for two or more different uninsured motorist coverages, he can cumulate the coverages.
The plaintiff respondent's and the Court of Appeal's reliance upon Barbin v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Segura v. Frank
...Co. v. Roberts, 404 So.2d 948, 949-51 (La.1981); Breaux v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 369 So.2d 1335, 1338 (La.1979); Seaton v. Kelly, 339 So.2d 731, 733-34 (La.1976). See also Fireside Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Martin, 223 La. 583, 593, 66 So.2d 511, 514 (1953) ("The [93-1271 La. 24] nature o......
-
96-15 La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96, Armand v. Rhodes
...667 So.2d 1052. A plaintiff has to be an "insured" under the insurance policy to recover under UM coverage. See Seaton v. Kelly, 339 So.2d 731 (La.1976); Earles v. Inchausti, 95-269 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/10/95); 656 So.2d 1048; Guedry v. Fromenthal, 633 So.2d 287 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993); Zanca v. ......
-
Barnes v. Thames
...person who does not qualify as an "insured" under the policy of insurance is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. Seaton v. Kelly, 339 So.2d 731, 734 (La.1976); Pierron v. Lirette, 468 So.2d 1305, 1307 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985). In the instant case, the Reliance policy was issued to SI......
-
Taylor v. Rowell
...under an insurance policy is not provided UM coverage under the policy. Hearty v. Harris, 574 So.2d 1234 (La.1991); Seaton v. Kelly, 339 So.2d 731 (La.1976); Guedry v. Fromenthal, 633 So.2d 287, 289 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993); Barnes v. Thames, 578 So.2d 1155, 1162 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writs den......
-
Stacking Un/Underinsured Motorist Coverages
...vehicle as well as other policies covering additional vehicles owned by the host? The majority precludes such coverage: Seaton v. Kelly , 339 So. 2d 731 (La. 1976); Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Auto. & Casualty Underwriters Ins. Co., 239 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. 1976); Florida Insurance Guaran......