Schollnick v. Doe
802 So. 2d 659, 2000 WL 758466 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover under the uninsured motorist provision of an automobile policy for bodily injury caused by a "phantom" vehicle (one with no physical contact), the injured party must prove by an independent and disinterested eyewitness that the injury resulted directly from the actions of the unknown driver.
Facts:
- Stephen Schollnick was driving a 1991 Toyota Tercel on Veterans Boulevard.
- Michael S. Barnhart was driving a Kenworth customized semi and pulling a 40-foot boat, also on Veterans Boulevard.
- A rust-colored Nissan, without warning, changed into Stephen Schollnick's lane.
- Stephen Schollnick swerved his vehicle to avoid the Nissan.
- After swerving, Stephen Schollnick's vehicle struck Michael S. Barnhart's eighteen-wheeler.
- Stephen Schollnick contended that the recklessly driven phantom Nissan vehicle was the cause of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Schollnick filed suit against GEICO Insurance Company and John Doe, seeking to recover for his damages under the uninsured motorist provision of his insurance policy.
- GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that under La.R.S. 22:1406, Schollnick was required to provide an independent and disinterested witness to testify that a phantom vehicle caused the accident, which he could not do.
- The trial judge (court of first instance) granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, finding that Schollnick could not provide such a witness, and dismissed his uninsured motorist claims.
- Stephen Schollnick appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit (appellant Schollnick, appellee GEICO).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial judge err in finding that Stephen Schollnick failed to provide an independent and disinterested witness who could testify that his injuries resulted from the actions of a "phantom" driver, thereby incorrectly granting GEICO's motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Grisbaum, Chief Judge
No, the trial judge did not err in finding that Stephen Schollnick failed to provide an independent and disinterested witness who could testify that his injuries resulted from the actions of a "phantom" driver, and thus correctly granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing La.R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(f), which requires an injured party to prove, by an independent and disinterested eyewitness, that the injury was the result of the actions of an unknown driver for recovery under uninsured motorist coverage in a non-contact accident. The court found Michael Barnhart's testimony insufficient, as he stated he saw another vehicle being driven erratically but did not see that vehicle pull into Stephen Schollnick's lane and cause him to swerve and hit Barnhart. This observation only established erratic driving, not that the unknown vehicle caused the specific accident, thereby failing to meet the statutory burden of proof required for a non-contact "phantom vehicle" claim.
Analysis:
This case provides a strict interpretation of Louisiana's statutory requirement for an independent and disinterested witness in "phantom vehicle" uninsured motorist claims. It clarifies that merely observing another vehicle driving erratically is insufficient; the witness must provide direct testimony establishing a causal link between the phantom vehicle's actions and the accident. The ruling reinforces the high burden of proof on claimants in non-contact accidents, aiming to prevent fraudulent claims but potentially making recovery difficult for legitimate claims where direct causal observation by a third party is absent.
