Doty v. Goauto Ins. Co.
251 So. 3d 706 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bystander's claim for severe mental anguish damages for witnessing a traumatic injury to a loved one (a 'Lejeune' claim) constitutes a direct injury to the bystander, entitling them to a separate 'per person' limit of liability under an automobile insurance policy, even when the policy defines bodily injury as 'physical bodily injury.'
Facts:
- Louise Theresa Doty and her husband, Homer Doty, were walking together in a pedestrian crosswalk at a mall.
- A vehicle driven by Brittany Nicole Fontenot struck 88-year-old Homer Doty.
- Louise Doty heard her husband yell, turned, and immediately saw him lying injured and bleeding on the ground with a tire track across his leg.
- Homer Doty suffered a fractured foot and other injuries that led to severe complications, including infections, dementia, and paraplegia.
- As a result of his injuries, Homer Doty required 28 days of hospitalization followed by 54 days in a nursing home for rehabilitation.
- Louise Doty remained by her husband's side almost constantly throughout his hospitalization and rehabilitation.
- A doctor subsequently diagnosed Louise Doty with anxiety, which he attributed to her husband's condition following the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Louise Theresa Doty sued driver Brittany Fontenot, her insurer, and her own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) insurer, State Farm, in a Louisiana state trial court.
- Doty settled with and dismissed Fontenot and her insurer.
- State Farm, having already paid its $50,000 per-person UM limit for Homer Doty's physical injuries, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing its policy limits were exhausted.
- The trial court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
- After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Mrs. Doty, awarding her $50,000 in damages, plus a $25,000 penalty and attorney fees for State Farm's arbitrary refusal to pay.
- State Farm, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit; Mrs. Doty, as appellee, answered the appeal seeking additional attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for bystander emotional distress ('Lejeune' damages) constitute a separate 'bodily injury' that is entitled to its own 'per person' uninsured motorist policy limit, even when the policy defines 'bodily injury' as 'physical bodily injury' and states that the per-person limit includes all damages sustained by others as a result of one person's bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Saunders, J.
Yes. A claim for Lejeune damages represents a direct, not derivative, injury to the bystander and thus constitutes its own 'bodily injury' eligible for a separate per-person policy limit. The court reasoned that the defining feature of a Lejeune claim is the plaintiff's spatial and temporal proximity to the traumatic event, which causes a direct injury to them. Following the precedent set in similar cases like Smith v. Thomas, the court held that despite the policy defining 'bodily injury' as 'physical bodily injury,' Mrs. Doty's severe mental anguish qualified as a separate compensable injury. The court also affirmed the trial court's finding that State Farm's refusal to pay was arbitrary and capricious, as its legal argument regarding the single-limit theory had been repeatedly refuted in prior jurisprudence involving similar policy language.
Dissenting - Gremillion, J.
Yes, but the damage award should be reduced and the penalties reversed. The dissenting opinion agrees that Mrs. Doty's Lejeune claim is subject to a separate per-person coverage limit. However, it argues the trial court committed an error of law by awarding damages for both the immediate shock of the accident and the ongoing distress of her husband's lengthy recovery. Lejeune damages are strictly limited to the 'immediate shock' of witnessing the event; anguish over subsequent medical treatment and rehabilitation falls under loss of consortium, a claim already exhausted by the payment to Mr. Doty. Furthermore, the dissent contends that State Farm's refusal to pay was not arbitrary or capricious because the case law was 'evolving' and its legal position was reasonably arguable, making the award of penalties and attorney fees improper.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms that Louisiana courts view bystander emotional distress claims as direct injuries, not derivative ones, for insurance coverage purposes. It demonstrates that an insurer's attempt to contractually limit liability by defining 'bodily injury' as purely 'physical' may not be sufficient to bundle a Lejeune claim into the direct victim's single per-person policy limit. The case highlights the critical legal distinction between the 'immediate shock' compensable under Lejeune and the ongoing 'anguish and distress' of a loved one's recovery, which is more properly categorized as loss of consortium. The dissent's strong disagreement on penalties suggests that good-faith legal disputes over evolving insurance contract interpretations may not always warrant punishment for being arbitrary and capricious.
Unlock the full brief for Doty v. Goauto Ins. Co.