Louisiana Injury Lawyer Blog

Stacking of multiple UM (uninsured/underinsured motorist) liability policies is prohibited by the Anti-Stacking provision contained in La.R.S. 22:1295(1)(c), unless the injured party is occupying an automobile not owned by him/her, a resident spouse, or a resident relative. In that instance, the UM coverage on the automobile in which the injured party is an occupant is primary, and if exhausted due to the extent of the injured occupant’s damages, then the injured occupant may recover as excess from one other UM policy available to him/her.

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.”

Is it reasonably forseeable that the first permittee might allow others to operate the automobile?

Implied permission by the named insured can be found even in the face of a specific prohibition against allowing others to operate the automobile if there is evidence that the named insured was aware of subsequent breaches by the permittee and took no remedial action or made no protests. On the other hand, the named insured’s express prohibition and consistent conduct enforcing the prohibition will preclude the implication that permission extends beyond the first permittee.

As long as initial use of an automobile is with the express or implied consent of the insured, the scope of permission granted the user will not preclude coverage unless the deviation from the permission consented to by the insured amounts to theft or other conduct displaying an utter disregard for the return or safe keeping of the vehicle.

Many liability policies extend coverage to relatives of the named insured who are “residents” of the same household of the named insured. Whether a person is or is not a resident of a particular place is a question of law as well as fact, and is to be determined from all of the facts of each particular case.

Residence and domicile are not synonymous terms. While a person may have only one domicile, he or she may have several residences.

Temporary absence does not necessarily preclude a relative from being a resident of the same household of the named insured.