Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
1982 La. LEXIS 11371, 418 So. 2d 575 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An automobile accident victim's uninsured motorist (UM) carrier is solidarily obliged with the tortfeasor. Therefore, a victim's timely filing of a lawsuit against the tortfeasor interrupts the prescriptive period (statute of limitations) for filing a claim against the UM carrier.
Facts:
- On November 1, 1976, Joann C. Hoefly was struck and injured by an automobile.
- The automobile was driven by Kim Lewiston, a minor, and owned by Neftali Rodriquez.
- The Hoeflys alleged Lewiston was negligent in her operation of the vehicle and Rodriquez was negligent for entrusting the vehicle to her and for seizing the steering wheel before the accident.
- The Hoeflys held an automobile insurance policy with Allstate Insurance Company that included uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage.
- Rodriquez was an uninsured motorist.
- The liability insurance covering Lewiston, provided by Government Employees Insurance Company, was insufficient to cover the Hoeflys' damages, making Lewiston an underinsured motorist.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Joann Hoefly filed suit against Neftali Rodriquez, Margaret C. Lewiston, and her insurer in a Louisiana trial court on October 12, 1977, within the prescriptive period.
- On September 5, 1980, nearly four years after the accident, the Hoeflys filed an amended petition naming their own UM carrier, Allstate Insurance Company, as a defendant.
- Allstate filed a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing the claim against it was untimely as it was filed more than two years after the accident.
- The trial court sustained Allstate's exception and dismissed the claim against it.
- The Hoeflys (appellants) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, where Allstate was the appellee.
- The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the UM carrier and the tortfeasor were not solidary obligors.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted the Hoeflys' application for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an automobile accident victim's uninsured motorist carrier solidarily obliged with the tortfeasor, such that a timely suit against the tortfeasor interrupts prescription with regard to the insurer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dennis
Yes. An uninsured motorist carrier is solidarily obliged with the tortfeasor because their obligations meet the legal definition of solidarity under the Louisiana Civil Code. A solidary obligation exists when debtors are obliged to the same thing, each can be compelled for the whole, and payment by one exonerates the other. Here, both the tortfeasor (under tort law) and the UM carrier (under statute and contract) are obliged to repair the victim's damages. The UM statute's purpose is to ensure full recovery, meaning neither obligor can plead for a division of the debt. Because they are solidary obligors, a suit against one interrupts prescription against the other pursuant to Civil Code Article 2097.
Dissenting - Justice Marcus
No. The uninsured motorist carrier is not solidarily liable with the tortfeasor. The obligations are not the same; the tortfeasor's obligation arises from delict, while the UM carrier's arises from a contract of indemnity to which the tortfeasor is not a party. Furthermore, no provision of law expressly makes them solidary obligors, and solidarity cannot be presumed.
Dissenting - Justice Calogero
No. The requirements for solidarity are not met because payment by the UM carrier does not exonerate the tortfeasor toward the creditor. The relevant statute grants the UM carrier a right of reimbursement from the insured's recovery against the tortfeasor, not a direct right of subrogation against the tortfeasor. Thus, the tortfeasor's debt is not extinguished by the UM carrier's payment.
Dissenting - Justice Blanche
No. Legal solidarity requires some relationship between the parties held solidarily liable, such as an employer-employee or insurer-insured relationship. There is no contractual or other relationship between the victim's UM carrier and the tortfeasor. The majority is judicially creating a solidary relationship where none exists by law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the concept of legal solidarity in Louisiana by finding it exists between a tortfeasor and the victim's UM carrier, despite the lack of a direct contractual or legal relationship. It established a crucial, plaintiff-friendly precedent that protects an injured party's claim against their own insurer from prescribing while the tortfeasor's insurance status is being litigated. By expressly overruling prior, more restrictive interpretations of solidarity, the court signaled a functional approach focused on the shared nature of the obligation to the victim rather than the source of each party's liability.
