Progressive moved for summary judgment, arguing that its policy excluded coverage for Mr. Crowley's claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") benefits.

Specifically, Progressive asserted that Mr. Crowley was engaged in ride-sharing activities, an excluded activity under its policy. In support of its motion, Progressive submitted deposition testimony of Mr. Crowley in which he acknowledged that, at the time he allegedly was rear-ended, he was logged on to the Lyft app, searching for a passenger near the New Orleans Convention Center.

Mr. Crowley urged the trial court to find that the exclusion violated public policy. He argued that the law favored coverage under an insurance policy and that the exclusion adversely affected his ability to receive complete reparation for his damages. Moreover, Mr. Crowley noted that Progressive had not established the procedural requirements for a knowing waiver of UM coverage.

The trial court granted Progressive's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Mr. Crowley's claims against Progressive, with prejudice.

Mr. Crowley appealed.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed.

In its decision, the appellate court first explained that the "clear and unambiguous language" of the Progressive policy excluded coverage for any bodily injury sustained while using or occupying a covered auto while engaging in ride-sharing activities. Adding that an insured was "deemed to know the contents" of his or her insurance policy, the appellate court decided that the trial court had not erred in finding that Progressive's policy did not afford coverage for the UM claims asserted by Mr. Crowley.

The appellate court was not persuaded by Mr. Crowley's contention that Progressive could not simply include its ride-sharing exclusion in its policy but that the exclusion for UM benefits had to be "unmistakable and knowing" and in conformity with the requirements set forth in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii), which included the use of a prescribed form.

The appellate court pointed out that a driver for a transportation network company ("TNC") such as Mr. Crowley was "not precluded from obtaining UM coverage for his ride-sharing activities." It then concluded that Progressive was not required to follow the formal requirements of La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii) to exclude coverage for ride-sharing activities.

The case is Crowley v. Go Auto Ins. Co., No. 2019-CA-0643 (La. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2019). Attorneys involved include: R. Brent Cueria, CUERIA LAW FIRM, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT. Dianna Duffy Willem, Charles V. Giordano, Michael E. Escudier, HEBBLER & GIORDANO, L.L.C., Metairie, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE. Karen M. Dicke, LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.