Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-11-2024
Case Style:
Allen Robinson v. Steve Williams, et al.
Case Number: 718215
Judge: Beau Higginbotham
Court: 19TH Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: S. Scott Rainwater, et al.
Description:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana personal injury truck wreck lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an auto negligence claim.
This suit arises from a January 12,2022, motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in a 2018 Dodge Ram 3500 (Ram 3500), operated by Clinton Prescott and owned by "EIR, Inc.," when a 2013 Ford Fl50 driven by Steve Williams struck the Ram 3500. Plaintiff filed a petition for damages on April 25, 2022, naming as defendants Williams; Continental Freight, Inc., the employer of Williams; Progressive Insurance Company, the insurer of Continental Freight, Inc.; and Starr, the UM insurer of EIR, Inc.
On November 22, 2022, Starr filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Starr did not issue a policy of insurance to EIR, Inc., the owner of the Ram 3500.[1] In support of the motion, Starr submitted the affidavit of Mark Killion, Starr's Assistant Vice President of Transportation &Commercial Auto Claims, who attested that he conducted a due diligence search of Starr's records. As a result of such search, Killion stated that there was no record of any policy issued to a company by the name of EIR, Inc. and further stated that Starr did not have a policy of insurance, including but not limited to UM, providing coverage to EIR, Inc. at the time of the accident on January 12, 2022. The initial hearing on Starr's motion for summary judgment was continued without date and, ultimately, the matter was removed from the docket at the request of Starr on May 9, 2023.
On June 12, 2023, Starr filed its answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiffs petition, generally denying the allegations therein. Particularly, Starr denied paragraph eleven of the petition, which alleged that Starr issued a policy of UM insurance to EIR, Inc., "bearing Policy [No.] 10006261202, with an expiration date of May 9,2022." In further answering, Starr stated that "EIR, Inc. properly executed a UM [waiver] form."
Thereafter, on August 1, 2023, Starr filed a second motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs claims against it. According to Starr, it issued a policy of insurance to "Environmental Industries Recycling, Inc. ('EIR, Inc.')," insuring the Ram 3500 at issue, but the policy contained a valid, enforceable UM waiver form, rejecting UM coverage for bodily injury ("UMBI coverage"). In support of its motion for summary judgment, Starr attached the plaintiffs petition; the affidavit of Buddy Dupuy with attached exhibits; Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance ("Commissioner") Bulletin No. 08-02; and Starr's discovery responses dated May 31, 2023.[2]
According to the affidavit of Dupuy, he is the owner and president of Environmental Industries Recycling, Inc. and acts on behalf of and is the authorized representative of Environmental Industries Recycling, Inc. in selecting insurance coverage. Dupuy attested that Environmental Industries Recycling, Inc. contracted with Starr for its insurance coverage and obtained a policy of insurance bearing Policy No. 1000626061201 (Starr Policy). Dupuy stated that the Starr Policy provided insurance for the Ram 3500 at the time of the accident and further stated that the policy period began on May 9, 2021 and ended on May 9, 2022. Dupuy attested that he executed a UM waiver associated with the Starr Policy, rejecting UMBI coverage, and that no premiums were paid for this coverage. According to Dupuy, he "explicitly rejected [UM] Coverage in 2021 for policy number 100026061201 issued by [Starr] to Environmental Industries Recycling, Inc.[] for this vehicle." Both the Starr Policy for the policy period May 9, 2021 through on May 9, 2022 and the UM waiver dated May 7, 2021, were attached to Dupuy's affidavit.
On September 15, 2023, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Compel the Deposition of Affiant Mark Killion and Buddy Dupuy, and Alternatively Continuance" and attached the following exhibits thereto: e-mail correspondence between counsel for plaintiff and defendant; Starr's discovery responses dated May 31, 2023; e-mail correspondence between counsel for plaintiff and defendant regarding depositions and Rule 10.1 conference; the affidavit of Killion; the affidavit of Dupuy; and the Rule 10.1 certificate.
In the memorandum in support of his motion, plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a continuance to conduct additional discovery. Plaintiff maintained that the affidavits of Killion and Dupuy created a contradiction and that he was entitled to conduct depositions of the affiants in order to determine the issues relating to the existence of insurance coverage. Further, plaintiff argued that the UM waiver form did not contain any policy numbers or otherwise identify the insuring object or persons such that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the UM waiver form is applicable. Plaintiff also argued that Starr failed to establish that the UM waiver form was sufficient to meet its burden of proof on the motion for summary judgment and requested, in the alternative, that the motion for summary judgment be denied.
On September 15, 2023, plaintiff also filed "Plaintiffs Genuine Issues of Material Fact,"[3] which stated as follows:
1. Mark Killion testifies in his Affidavit of November 21, 2022 that there was no policy of insurance issued to the company by the name of EIR, Inc., and that on January 12, 2022 [Starr] had no policy of insurance, including but not limited to UM/UIM providing coverage to EIR, Inc.
2. Buddy Dupuy, the insured, acknowledges coverage, but that there is a UM rejection.
3. In the UM rejection, there is no mention of EIR, Inc. and there is no independent evidence that Buddy Dupuy is a representative of the company made subject of the litigation.
4. There is no evidence that Buddy Dupuy had authority to execute the UM rejection form.
The hearing on the motion for summary judgment was set for October 2,2023, and the hearing on plaintiffs motion to compel was set for November 6, 2023. At the October 2, 2023 hearing, the trial court reassigned the matter for hearing on November 6, 2023. On November 6, 2023, the trial court denied plaintiffs motion to compel and granted Starr's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing plaintiffs claims against Starr with prejudice. The trial court memorialized its ruling in a judgment dated December 4, 2023. Plaintiff appealed and assigned as error the trial court's grant of Starr's motion for summary judgment.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: