The Trial Court

Verneuil claimed that, when she had amended her policy, Goauto had not made a second offering for UMBI coverage. In neglecting to obtain a second waiver, she said, Goauto had also violated public policy. Therefore, the insurer was obligated to cover her claim.

Goauto filed a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss Verneuil’s claim with prejudice. The insurer argued a second UMBI offering was only necessary if there was a change to Verneuil’s limit of liability. Verneuil had renewed her policy several times since it was first purchased, including the amendment where she added UMPD coverage. That amendment had not altered Verneuil’s policy limits, so her initial waiver of UMBI coverage still applied.

Verneuil argued that, at the very least, Goauto’s argument created a triable issue of fact that could not be resolved by summary judgment. The trial judges, however, agreed with Goauto. Verneuil had amended her policy to include UMPD coverage, not UMBI. Her liability limits had not changed, so the claim denial had been proper. Goauto’s motion for summary judgment was granted, as was its motion to dismiss Verneuil’s claim with prejudice. Verneuil appealed.

UMPD and UMBI Aren’t the Same

Under La. R.S. §22:1295, noted the appellate judges, the UM limit on auto policies had to be the same as those for liability coverage; however, a named insured could reject those limits in favor of a lesser limit or no limit at all. Once that initial election was made, amending the policy would not require another UM waiver unless the amendment changed the insured’s policy limits.

The appellate judges pointed out that Verneuil had made a valid, affirmative waiver of UM coverage when she first purchased her Goauto policy. Therefore, under La. R.S. §22:1295, this waiver would remain valid so long as Verneuil had coverage through that policy from Goauto, unless it was amended in a way that changed Verneuil’s liability limits. Verneuil argued that she had not been offered a second UM election form when she amended her policy, and therefore did not have the opportunity to choose UMBI coverage. No valid UM waiver, she claimed, meant Goauto could not deny her claim.

Unfortunately for Verneuil, the judges were not convinced. The UMBI form, for one thing, did not reference UMPD coverage. For another, UMPD coverage–as the court said–is separate and distinct from UMBI coverage. Though Verneuil had added UMPD coverage, those benefits were separate from her liability limit for UMBI.

Conclusion

Since Verneuil’s addition of UMPD coverage did not affect her liability limits for UMBI, a second UMBI waiver was not required. The appellate judges affirmed both the award of summary judgment to Goauto and the dismissal of Verneuil’s claim with prejudice.

Editor’s Note: Though the term “UM coverage,” when used on its own, is generally understood to include both UMPD and UMBI, it does not erase the distinction between them. Coverage for UMPD kicks in when the insured’s vehicle or other property is damaged by an uninsured driver, while coverage for UMBI is triggered when an insured suffers bodily injury at the hands of an uninsured driver.

When Verneuil initially rejected UM coverage, that rejection applied to both UMPD and UMBI coverage. When she amended the policy, she only requested the addition of UMPD coverage. Changing UMPD coverage did not affect UMBI coverage, so a second waiver wasn’t necessary.

Read More:

UM Coverage and Requirements for Waiving That Coverage

UM Policy Restrictions Not in Violation of State Law

Uninsured Motorists Requirements By State