McCoy v. Usagencies Casualty Insurance Co.
142 So. 3d 1086, 14 La.App. 3 Cir. 49, 2014 WL 2958513 (2014)
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, to recover for bodily injury under an uninsured motorist policy in a “miss and run” accident (where there is no physical contact), the injured party bears the burden of proving, by an independent and disinterested witness, that the injury was the result of the actions of the driver of another vehicle, and this proof requires independent corroboration beyond merely relaying the claimant's account.
Facts:
- On July 9, 2012, Hattie Denise McCoy was driving to work at L’Auberge Du Lac Casino and Resort in Lake Charles.
- McCoy claimed she was run off the road by an unknown vehicle, which then fled the scene without stopping.
- Her vehicle came to rest over the curb on the side of the road.
- McCoy asserted she suffered bodily injury as a result of the incident.
- Corporal Robert Janice of the Lake Charles Police Department arrived at the scene approximately thirty minutes after the incident occurred.
- Corporal Janice spoke with McCoy, who informed him she had been run off the road by another vehicle.
- There were no other witnesses to the incident, and McCoy's vehicle did not come into physical contact with any other vehicle.
- At the time of the incident, McCoy had a policy of insurance with USAgencies, which included uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.
Procedural Posture:
- Hattie Denise McCoy brought a claim against her insurance policy with USAgencies, alleging the driver of another vehicle caused her accident and injuries.
- USAgencies opposed the claim, contending McCoy could not meet the statutory requirement of proving the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle.
- USAgencies filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court determined that McCoy was unable to satisfy her burden of proving the unwitnessed accident was caused by another driver.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of USAgencies, dismissing McCoy's suit with prejudice.
- McCoy appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, with McCoy as the appellant and USAgencies as the appellee.
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 the testimony of an independent and disinterested police officer, who merely relays the injured party's account of a "miss and run" accident without independent corroboration of causation by another vehicle, satisfy the burden of proof required by Louisiana law for uninsured motorist coverage?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooks
No, the testimony of an independent and disinterested police officer, who merely relays the injured party's account of a "miss and run" accident without independent corroboration of causation by another vehicle, does not satisfy the burden of proof required by Louisiana law for uninsured motorist coverage. The court applied a de novo standard of review to the summary judgment. Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1295(l)(f) and the USAgencies policy mandate that for “miss and run” claims, the injured party must prove by an “independent and disinterested witness” that the injury resulted from another vehicle's actions. This requires two elements: the witness must be independent and disinterested, and the witness must prove causation. While Corporal Janice was acknowledged as an independent and disinterested witness, his testimony amounted only to a relaying of McCoy's account. He explicitly stated he had no personal knowledge and noted "there was nothing anywhere else around" to substantiate McCoy's claim independently. The court distinguished Wheat v. Wheat, where an investigating officer’s testimony was sufficient because his independent investigation discovered tangible physical evidence (a transmission in the roadway) that corroborated the plaintiff’s assertion of another vehicle’s causation. In McCoy's case, there was no such independent analysis or corroborating physical proof by Corporal Janice. Therefore, McCoy failed to carry her burden of proving the injuries were caused by the actions of another driver, and summary judgment for USAgencies was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the burden of proof for "miss and run" uninsured motorist claims in Louisiana, establishing that an independent and disinterested witness must provide actual corroboration of causation by an unknown vehicle, not just recount the claimant's allegations. It highlights that even police officers, while typically independent, must base their testimony on objective findings or independent analysis, not subjective accounts, to satisfy the statutory requirements. This ruling aims to prevent fraudulent claims by imposing a higher evidentiary standard in scenarios lacking physical contact or other witnesses, guiding future litigants and courts on the nature of admissible and sufficient independent witness testimony in such cases.
