Guillot v. Travelers Indem. Co.
338 So. 2d 334 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer cannot enforce policy exclusions that conflict with a state's mandatory uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) statute. An injured passenger whose damages exceed the tortfeasor-driver's liability limits may recover under the UM provisions of the same policy, as the vehicle is considered 'underinsured' under the statute, rendering contrary policy definitions void.
Facts:
- On May 5, 1975, Leontine Guillot was a passenger in an automobile owned and driven by her husband, Irvin Joseph Guillot.
- A motor vehicle accident occurred, the cause of which was determined to be the sole negligence of Mr. Guillot.
- Mrs. Guillot sustained personal injuries as a result of the accident.
- The vehicle was covered by an insurance policy from The Travelers Indemnity Company, issued to Mr. Guillot, which provided both liability and uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- The total amount of Mrs. Guillot's damages from her injuries exceeded the policy's liability coverage limit of $10,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Leontine Guillot sued her husband's insurer, The Travelers Indemnity Company, in a Louisiana district court (trial court) to recover for her injuries.
- Travelers paid the $10,000 policy limit under the liability coverage but denied Guillot's claim under the uninsured motorist provisions.
- The trial court found in favor of Guillot, awarding her $10,000 under the liability provisions and an additional $2,500 under the uninsured motorist provisions.
- The Travelers Indemnity Company, as defendant-appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
- Leontine Guillot, as plaintiff-appellee, answered the appeal, seeking an increase in the damage award.
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 passenger injured due to the sole negligence of her driver-spouse, whose damages exceed the policy's liability limits, have a right to recover additional damages under the same policy's underinsured motorist provisions, despite policy exclusions defining the vehicle as not 'uninsured' and the doctrine of interspousal immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Domengeaux, Judge
Yes. A passenger whose damages exceed the liability limits of the policy covering the vehicle she was in may recover under that same policy's underinsured motorist provisions. The court held that the doctrine of interspousal immunity is a personal defense that cannot be asserted by an insurer; the term 'legally entitled to recover' in the UM statute only requires the plaintiff to establish the driver's fault and prove damages. Furthermore, policy clauses that exclude the insured's own vehicle from the definition of an 'uninsured motor vehicle' are invalid because they are in derogation of the mandatory requirements of Louisiana's UM statute. The statute explicitly provides that an 'uninsured motor vehicle' includes an 'insured motor vehicle' when the liability coverage is less than the damages suffered, effectively making it an underinsured vehicle.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that Louisiana's Uninsured Motorist (UM) statute is a remedial law to be liberally construed in favor of providing coverage to innocent victims. It establishes that the statute's public policy mandate overrides conflicting terms in a private insurance contract, preventing insurers from using definitional clauses to circumvent statutorily required coverage. The ruling solidifies that an insured's own vehicle can be deemed 'underinsured' for the purpose of a passenger's recovery, allowing for the stacking of liability and UM coverages under a single policy in certain circumstances.
