Soileau v. Patterson Ins.

4 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Indemnity Ins.

    751 So. 2d 351 (La. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, the form must offer the insured the option to accept coverage or inform the insured that she would be automatically covered with the minimum limits as a matter of law if she did not reject coverage. Daigle, supra; Soileau v. Patterson Insurance Group, Inc., 96-0017 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 697 So.2d 44, 47 (Lottinger, C.J., dissenting), reversed, 97-1910 (La. 10/31/97), 703 So.2d 4 (for the reasons assigned by Judge Lottinger). The insured cannot know of the statutorily mandated coverage until the insured is informed of it; therefore, the UM rejection form must inform the insured of the statutorily mandated coverage in order for the form to be legally sufficient.

  2. Trahan v. Prudential Pro.

    739 So. 2d 811 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 10 times
    Finding the 1997 amendment to La. C.C.P. art. 966 was procedural in nature

    agrees that Uninsured Motorists Coverage provides property damage coverage to motor vehicles(s) without Collision Coverage. The recent case Soileau v. Patterson Insurance Group, Inc., 96-0017 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97); 697 So.2d 44, reversed, 97-1910 (La. 10/31/97); 703 So.2d 4, is instructive as to the application of the latest test of UM rejection/selection form validity as enunciated in Daigle. The Daigle court declared the necessity of the insurer to advise the insured "in plain and unambiguous language that Louisiana law requires all automobile liability policies issued or delivered in the state to afford uninsured motorist coverage 'unless the insured shall reject such coverage.'"

  3. Thigpen v. RPM Pizza, Inc.

    772 So. 2d 704 (La. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    The Louisiana Supreme Court has also recognized that a "meaningful selection" can be made when only two options are given, i.e., (1) UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits in the policy, or (2) no UM coverage, but only if the policy provides the minimum coverage allowed by law in a so-called "10/20 policy." See, e.g.,Soileau v. Patterson Insurance Group, Inc., 97-1910 (La. 10/31/97), 703 So.2d 4 (reversing this court for reasons stated in Chief Judge Lottinger's dissent in Soileau v. Patterson Insurance Group, Inc., 96-0017 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/20/97), 697 So.2d 44);Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La. 4/8/97), 691 So.2d 1213. The method of rejecting and/or selecting UM coverage used in the Evanston policy does not conform to the requirements of La.R.S. 22:1406(D)(1)(a)(ii).

  4. Kinchen v. Bridges

    724 So. 2d 780 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    The form must "inform the insured of the statutorily mandated coverage." Soileau v. Patterson Insurance Group, Inc., 96-0017 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97); 697 So.2d 44, 47 (Lottinger, C.J., dissenting), writ granted, 97-1910 (La. 10/31/97); 703 So.2d 4 (for the reasons assigned by Judge Lottinger). The rejection form at issue informs the applicant that protection against uninsured motorists is provided by law and cites the statutory authority for such coverage.