Key Developments

Although insured may not have been able to read the UM waiver form which was printed in English, the insurance agent spoke with insured in Spanish at all relevant times; thus nothing prevented insured from asking questions if he felt he did not understand what he was signing.  Held, summary judgment upholding the waiver was...
Read more »

A compromise settlement between the plaintiff and the driver, owner and insurer of the offending car provided that plaintiff released “all other persons, firms and corporations” and did not expressly reserve plaintiff’s rights against other defendants. Held, the settlement released the driver’s employer and the employer’s insurer, where there is no allegation that...
Read more »

Deposition testimony filed in the record in connection with an earlier exception may be considered on a subsequent motion for summary judgment; Article 966B does not require that deposition testimony already filed in the record be introduced into evidence at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Gatlin v Guy A. Kleinheitz...
Read more »

The exclusion of government owned vehicles from uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage thwarts the expressed public policy of the UM statute and is unenforceable. Thus the trial court errs in using the policy language (coverage does not include a vehicle owned by any government or any of its political subdivisions or agencies) to deny coverage....
Read more »

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Effective appellate review of such orders can be had by other means, including post-judgment review. An appellate court can remedy the improper disclosure of privileged materials...
Read more »

The Supreme Court concludes that no fault medical payment provision in an insurance policy is payable irrespective of the defendant’s liability in tort, and thus payment of the medical expenses only, without other acts by the insured, does not constitute an acknowledgment of general liability for damages.  Titus v IHOP Restaurant, Inc., No. 09-CC-951 (12/1/09)
Read more »

The Fifth (La.) Circuit has concluded that a court may impose penalties under both CCP Arts. 863 and 1471 and under R.S. 22:1220. In the instant case, the court found that the defendant failed to name all relevant insurance policies on discovery, and that the insurer subsequently was found in violation of its duty...
Read more »

A person who is not an insured for liability purposes is not an insured for uninsured motorist purposes; a driver who is excluded from liability coverage under an insurance policy, pursuant to R.S. 32:900(L), also is precluded from recovering under the policy’s UM coverage.  Filipski v Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., Supreme Court,...
Read more »