Signature Affecting the Validity of the Animal Liability Exclusion
December 30, 2013
Plaintiff, Shane Reaux, alleged several injuries resulting from a car accident in which he swerved to avoid hitting defendant, the Moresis', unleashed dog in the road. The accident occurred in front of the Moresis' home and Reaux added Southern Fidelity Insurance Company, the Moresis' homeowner's insurer, as a defendant to this action. The policy contained an Animal Liability Exclusion, which excluded coverage for any damage caused by an animal. Southern Fidelity filed a motion for summary judgment that the case be dismissed based upon the policy's Animal Liability Exclusion. The Moresis challenged the validity of the exclusion, however, because the exclusion clause contained a signature line but was not signed by the Moresis. The trial court agreed with the Moresis that the lack of a signature on the policy's signature line invalidated the exclusion. This appeal followed. This case is Reaux v. Moresi, 120 So.3d 959 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2013).
The question before the court was whether or not the trial court erred in deciding that the Animal Liability Exclusion was not part of the policy, which the Court reviewed de novo. Specifically, the policy contained the following exclusionary language: “[W]e will not cover any bodily injury or damages caused by any animal owned or kept by any insured, including the failure to restrain or enclose the animal, located at the insured location…[W]e will not cover bodily injury or medical expenses caused by any animal owned or kept by any insured, including the failure to restrain or enclose the animal, located at the insured location…[W]e will not cover property damage caused by any animal owned or kept by any insured, including the failure to restrain or enclose the animal, located at the insured location.” Moreover, each clause stated that the quoted exclusions were applicable, whether or not the damage occurred on the premises of the insured or any other location.
Plaintiff relied on Louisiana auto insurance precedent holding that a UM clause be signed to be valid. However, noted the court, while Louisiana has a statute directly requiring signatures relating to UM clauses, it has no such regulation regarding the Animal Liability Exclusion. Moreover, it could find no case law requiring the same. Applying the “Entire Contract Doctrine,” the court reasoned that the Animal Liability Exclusion was made physically part of the policy, whether signed or not, because the exclusion was written, made reference to the Moresis' policy, and was physically attached thereto. Consequently, the court reversed the decision of the lower court and held that the Animal Liability Exclusion need not be signed by the policyholder in order to be valid.
Editor's Note: The facts of the situation had the Court of Appeals simply applying the policy language to the claim. The requirement of a signature by the insured relating to UM coverage was not a requirement for other provisions of an insurance policy in order for those provisions to be effective. Therefore, the language of the policy as a whole made the animal liability exclusion applicable to this claim.