Plaintiffs rely on Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, to support their argument that Louisiana UM law should apply. 2004-0725 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05); 907 So. 2d 122. This case is easily distinguishable from the matter at hand and the cases cited by the Court.
When conducting a choice-of-law analysis, we look to LSA-C.C. arts. 3515 and 3537. Dunlap v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, 2004-0725 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/24/05), 907 So.2d 122, 124. The objective of the choice-of-law process is to identify the state whose policies would be most seriously impaired if its laws were not applied to the particular issue involved in the law suit.
A Georgia insurance agent negotiated and placed the policy and subsequently renewed the policy annually up to the time of the incident in January 2019.Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest , 04-0725 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 907 So. 2d 122, 126.Champagne , 893 So. 2d at 788.
He was rear-ended in nearby Lafayette, and he clearly has expectations of protection from and by the laws of Louisiana. In Dunlap v. Hartford Insurance Co. of Midwest, 04-725, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 907 So.2d 122, 125, where the plaintiff was a Louisiana resident who had been run off of the roadway by a phantom driver, the court found that, where the accident occurred in Louisiana, and all of the plaintiff's medical treatment related to the accident had been and probably would continue to be provided by doctors and hospitals in Louisiana, the plaintiff "would expect to be protected by its laws, including Louisiana's strong public policy to promote full recovery for innocent accident victims." In the present case, Fireman's Fund has argued that a determination of whether Texas or Louisiana law is applicable to the enforcement of the insurance contract is not dependent upon the relationship of the parties in this case to the insurance contract but to the relationship of the parties in the contract. That is to say, the injured parties not involved in the contract, whether they be plaintiffs or defendants, are not factors for consideration. If that were true, then there would be no balancing of compe
(2) the policies and needs of the interstate and international systems, including the policies of upholding the justified expectations of parties and of minimizing the adverse consequences that might follow from subjecting a party to the law of more than one state. Id.; see also Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co., 907 So.2d 122, 124 (La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 2005). Article 3537, intended to be read in conjunction with article 3515, provides "an illustrative list of the factual contacts that are usually pertinent" in determining which state's policies would be most impaired by the failure to apply its law.
2004-0725 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 907 So.2d 122 (2005) Taken as correct, Plaintiff's application of the out-of-state coverage provision would force an Iowa insurance policy to apply Illinois UM/UIM law to an accident taking place in Arkansas involving an underinsured Arkansas driver.
To this end it points to three federal court decisions applying Louisiana law to out-of-state insurance policies relating to coverage for injuries inflicted in Louisiana. See In re Combustion Inc., 960 F.Supp. 1056 (W.D. La. 1997); CXY Chems. USA v. Gerling Global Ins. Co., 991 F.Supp. 770 (E.D. La. 1998); Richards Realty Co. v. Paramount Disaster Recovery, Inc., 476 F.Supp.2d 618 (E.D. La. 2007); Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest, 907 So.2d 122 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005). As Pioneer notes, however, these decisions involved Louisiana tort claimants or property owners seeking to apply Louisiana law. Another, Leblanc v. Texas Brine Co., LLC, 2015 WL 7451196 (E.D. La. Nov. 23, 2015), was a suit involving plaintiffs' claims arising from a sinkhole against the insured tortfeasor, Texas Brine Company ("TBC"), as well as TBC's claims against its insurers, including Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. ("LIUI"), and plaintiff's direct action claims against LIUI.
(2) the policies and needs of the interstate and international systems, including the policies of upholding the justified expectations of parties and of minimizing the adverse consequences that might follow from subjecting a party to the law of more than one state.Id. ; see also Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co. , 907 So.2d 122, 124 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005). Article 3537, intended to be read in conjunction with article 3515, provides "an illustrative list of the factual contacts that are usually pertinent" in determining which state's policies would be most impaired by the failure to apply its law.
To support this contention, she invokes four Louisiana state court cases in which Louisiana law was applied to foreign policies issued to non-Louisiana residents; two of these cases pre-date Champagne, while two others concern commercial auto policies. See Francis v. Travelers Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1036 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991) (applying Louisiana law to UM claim filed by Louisiana residents who were guest passengers of a vehicle covered by a policy issued in Ohio to Ohio residents); Adams v. Thomason, 21,728 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/1/00); 753 So. 2d 416 (applying Louisiana law to UM claim filed by Louisiana resident allegedly occupying a vehicle covered by a policy issued in Wisconsin to a Wisconsin resident); Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co., 04-0725 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05); 907 So. 2d 122, 126-27 (applying Louisiana law to UM claim filed by Louisiana resident under his Michigan employer's Michigan policy that "provided commercial coverage for a fleet of vehicles used nationwide"); Boutte v. Fireman's Fund Cty. Mut. Ins. Co., (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/10/06), 930 So. 2d 305 (applying Louisiana law where accident victim was a Louisiana resident and tortfeasor's vehicle was covered by a commercial auto policy issued in Texas). Ultimately, the Court finds that, under the facts of this case as they currently exist, 21st Century has not sustained its burden of establishing that California's policies would be most seriously impaired if its law were not applied.
As TBC points out, Louisiana courts have historically recognized the significance of this Louisiana policy in the choice of law analysis. See, e.g., Dunlap v. Harford Ins. Co., 907 So. 2d 122, 124 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005); In re Combustion, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 1056, 1068 (W.D. La. 1997) (Haik, J.). Of course, Louisiana law recognizes that an insurance policy is a conventional obligation governed by principles of contract.