A Louisiana appeals court ruled that a named driver exclusion that was not dated and the insured's inability to recall if his son was a resident of the household when the endorsement was executed did not preclude summary judgment. The case is Fields v. American Central Ins. Co., No. 40, 738-CA, 2006 WL 544538 (La. App. Mar. 8, 2006).
William C. Lensing ran a red light and caused an accident with Dale Fields. Lensing was driving a vehicle owned by his father, William S. Lensing. Fields was insured by State Farm, and William S. was insured by American Central.
State Farm and Fields filed suit against American Central and William S.. American Central claimed its policy did not apply because it contained a Named Driver Exclusion endorsement that excluded coverage for William C.
Louisiana law requires coverage for anyone using an insured vehicle with the name insured's consent. An exception to the law allows the named insured to exclude coverage, in writing, for any person who is a resident of his household.
William S. entered into such an agreement in the form of the Named Driver Exclusion endorsement. Fields argued, however, that no evidence showed that the endorsement was executed on a specific date.
The court stated, “While it is true that the record does not establish the exact date that the named driver exclusion was executed, the record clearly establishes that it was executed no later than February 20, 2003 [the accident occurred on June 18, 2003], when it was incorporated into the renewal policy under which coverage is being sought.”
Louisiana law states that a named driver exclusion remains effective for the life of the policy, and a new endorsement does not need to be executed at renewal. Thus, the court ruled that “the exact dated of execution is not a material fact precluding summary judgment in this case.”
Fields also contended that no evidence showed that William C. was a resident of the household when the endorsement was executed. In testimony, William S. was unable to recall if his son was a resident when the endorsement was executed.
The court said, “An insured's inability to recall his son's residency at the time he executed a named driver exclusion endorsement excluding coverage for his son does not create a genuine issue of fact.”
American Central provided certified copies of a policy obtained from Progressive that listed William C. as an insured at the same address listed on American Central's policy for William S. The policy was in force at the time the named driver exclusion endorsement was executed, and the court found this to be evidence that tended to prove William C. was a resident of the household when the endorsement was executed. Thus, the court concluded that summary judgment in favor of American Central was properly entered.