Smith v. Thomas
2017 La. App. LEXIS 102, 2017 WL 361168, 214 So. 3d 945 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bystander's claim for severe emotional distress (Lejeune damages) constitutes a separate 'bodily injury' under an automobile liability policy, allowing recovery from the 'per accident' limit, when the bystander was present at the scene and the policy language does not explicitly restrict all emotional distress claims to the 'per person' limit of the directly injured party.
Facts:
- On February 19, 2012, Fran Smith and her 14-year-old daughter, Kelise Smith, were walking single file along the gravel and grass shoulder of a two-lane road in Monroe.
- Kelise was walking a few feet in front of her mother, Fran.
- A car driven by Robert Thomas struck Fran from behind, throwing her into a drainage ditch and knocking her unconscious.
- Kelise immediately ran to her mother and saw her unresponsive and foaming at the mouth, leading Kelise to believe her mother had been killed.
- As a direct result of witnessing the event, Kelise suffered severe and debilitating emotional distress, including nightmares, withdrawal from social activities, and an ongoing fear for her mother's safety.
- The road where the accident occurred did not have a sidewalk, and the area was not lit by streetlights.
Procedural Posture:
- Fran Smith and her husband, Troy, filed suit individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, Kelise, against Robert Thomas (driver), Cheryl Huey (owner), and State Farm (their insurer) in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The plaintiffs settled the direct injury claims of Fran and Troy against Thomas, Huey, and State Farm for the $15,000 'per person' policy limit, while expressly reserving Kelise’s claim for bystander emotional distress (Lejeune damages).
- State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing its liability was exhausted by the payment of the single 'per person' limit.
- The trial court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found driver Robert Thomas 100% at fault and awarded Kelise Smith $12,000 in Lejeune damages, holding that the claim was covered under the policy's separate 'per accident' limit.
- The trial court denied State Farm's subsequent motion for a new trial.
- Robert Thomas and State Farm appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
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 bystander's claim for severe emotional distress, as defined by Lejeune, constitute a separate 'bodily injury' under an automobile insurance policy, thereby triggering the policy's 'per accident' liability limit after the 'per person' limit has been paid for the party who was directly physically struck?
Opinions:
Majority - Drew, J.
Yes, a bystander's claim for severe emotional distress can constitute a separate 'bodily injury' under the policy, triggering the 'per accident' limit. The court distinguished this case from precedents that limited recovery, such as Hebert v. Webre, based on three key factors. First, unlike the wrongful death claims in Hebert, this is a Lejeune claim where jurisprudence has historically treated severe emotional distress as a form of bodily injury. Second, the State Farm policy in this case, unlike the policy in Hebert, did not contain specific language in its 'each person' limit description that explicitly included 'all emotional distress damages,' creating an ambiguity construed against the insurer. Third, and most critically, the 'each accident' limit applies when 'two or more persons [are] injured in the same accident.' Unlike the claimants in Hebert who were not present, Kelise witnessed the accident from an arm's length away and was therefore plainly injured 'in the same accident' as her mother, satisfying the policy's condition to trigger the separate, per-accident limit of liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that bystander emotional distress (Lejeune) claims are not inherently derivative of the primary victim's physical injury claim for insurance coverage purposes. The ruling emphasizes that the specific wording of an insurance policy is paramount; the absence of explicit language consolidating all emotional distress damages under a single 'per person' limit can create ambiguity that opens the door to the 'per accident' limit. It also establishes a clear distinction between Lejeune claims, where the claimant is present at the scene, and wrongful death claims, where claimants are not. This precedent will guide courts in interpreting 'physical bodily injury' clauses and will require insurers to use highly specific language if they intend to limit recovery for all emotional distress to a single 'per person' limit.
