In the absence of physical contact, the insured can prove “by an independent and disinterested witness, that the injury was the result of the actions of the driver of another vehicle whose identify is unknown.” La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(f). This is “justifiable because miss and run is too fraud-fraught: every driver who falls asleep or otherwise loses control and injures himself in a one-car accident could blame a non-existent miss-and-run driver and collect under his uninsured motorist coverage.” Springer v. GEICO, 311 So.2d 36 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 313 So.2d 598 (La.1975).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Stracener v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. Of Texas, 682 So.2d 940 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1996), held that a “person who is dependent, either wholly or partially, upon one who stands to recover cannot be an independent and disinterested witness. Nor can a person who stands to recover be considered a disinterested witness.”