Washam v. Chancellor

13 Citing cases

  1. Thibodeaux v. Burton

    538 So. 2d 1001 (La. 1989)   Cited 109 times
    In Thibodeaux, the court's "interest of justice" concern was predicated in part on the quality of the plaintiff's prima facie case.

    Barriere did not meet this requirement for its UM coverage, since it elected to only maintain $20,000 worth of UM coverage in its policy with National. This court addressed an identical issue in the case of Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987). In that case, plaintiff's employer selected lower limits in its underlying policy than those required by the excess policy.

  2. Mohr v. State Farm Insurance Co.

    528 So. 2d 144 (La. 1988)   Cited 13 times
    In Mohr v. State Farm Ins., 528 So.2d 144 (La. 1988), the plaintiff suffered severe debilitating and permanent injury when her car collided with a tractor-trailer truck.

    Because Underwriters is only liable for the amount in excess of $500,000, there is no primary coverage available to plaintiff between $10,000 and $500,000. Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987). Since Bellefonte and Underwriters essentially provide only one coverage, that is coverage on the Sims' automobile in differing amounts, Elizabeth Mohr is entitled to recover under her own uninsured motorist policy any excess over and above that primary coverage.

  3. Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    122 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    If we were able to write on a blank slate, Allstate's argument that the Murphys should be held to the implications of their choice to purchase lower coverage limits of $15,000/$30,000 in their automobile liability policy has considerable force. See, e.g.,Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La.1987). While not specifically mentioning uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, Allstate's policy provided that the Murphys had to maintain bodily injury coverage in their automobile liability policy of $100,000.

  4. Berger v. AIG Prop. Cas. Ins. Agency

    Civil Action 22-04289 (E.D. La. Sep. 30, 2024)

    Defendant maintains that Louisiana courts have consistently held that umbrella and excess insurance policies which include the same language as the Lexington Policy do not drop down in coverage. Plaintiffs counter that the lead Louisiana case relied on by Lexington, Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987), did not involve a signed written waiver of UM/UIM coverage in the umbrella policy, unlike the Lexington Policy; and (2) the Lexington Policy's Insuring Agreement is ambiguous and creates an alleged impossibility because the “Insured” cannot become legally obligated to pay damages in the context of statutorily mandated UM/UIM coverage.

  5. Gumpert v. Encompass Prop. & Cas. Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-11022 SECTION "F" (E.D. La. Jul. 27, 2018)

    The Court agrees. See Hayes v. De Barton, 211 So. 3d 1275 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2017); Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So. 2d 806 (La. 1987); Sacks v. Allstate Prop. & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 16-16578, 2018 WL 1409269 (E.D. La. Mar. 21, 2018); Tijerina v. Stawecki, et al., 670 So. 2d 792 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1996). Once an insurer signs and completes a UM waiver form, the burden shifts to the insured to prove that they did not knowingly select lower coverage.

  6. Futch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.

    625 So. 2d 1019 (La. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    In Futch v. Commercial Union Insurance Co, 625 So.2d 1019, 1021 (La.1993) (citations omitted), the supreme court stated that "[b]ecause of the strong public policy favoring UM coverage, formal rejection of that benefit is required.

    Under Condition P, absence of the requisite underlying insurance limited coverage to the excess over $500,000 up to $1.5 million in recoverable damages. See Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987), and Thibodeaux v. Burton, 538 So.2d 1001 (La. 1989). Condition P also preserved the umbrella coverage if the underlying insurance was with an unnamed company or was nonexistent.

  7. Ellis v. McDonald

    265 So. 3d 982 (La. Ct. App. 2019)

    Under Condition P [the "failure to maintain" clause], absence of the requisite underlying insurance limited coverage to the excess over $ 500,000 up to $ 1.5 million in recoverable damages. See Washam v. Chancellor , 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987), and Thibodeaux v. Burton , 538 So.2d 1001 (La. 1989). Condition P also preserved the umbrella coverage if the underlying insurance was with an unnamed company or was nonexistent.

  8. Tijerina v. Stawecki

    670 So. 2d 792 (La. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    In Tijernia v. Stawecki, 670 So.2d 792, 794 (La.App. 1996), the issues were whether there was a valid rejection of the UM coverage and whether the excess carrier would drop down to provide UM coverage.

    Liberty Mutual's excess policy, thus, provides U/M coverage to Alamo. However, in Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987), the Louisiana Supreme Court held before an excess policy providing for U/M coverage is available the limit of the underlying policy must be exhausted. The trial court correctly held Liberty Mutual's excess policy does not provide coverage until there is an award in excess of $1,000,000.

  9. Mosley v. Dairyland Ins. Co.

    614 So. 2d 792 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    In Mosely, the corporation claimed that its president lacked the authority to reject uninsured motorist coverage on behalf of the corporation.

    A policy expressly providing automobile liability coverage only in excess of required underlying coverage affords UM coverage only in excess of that same amount. Mohr v. State Farm Insurance Company, 528 So.2d 144 (La. 1988); Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987); Lindsey v. Poole, 579 So.2d 1145 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1991), writ denied, 588 So.2d 100 (La. 1991); Dupree v. Hill, 530 So.2d 1226 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1988). The vehicle driven by Mosley was insured by Southern American in the form of commercial umbrella liability coverage with a policy period of June 1, 1985, to June 1, 1986.

  10. Tallman v. Champions Ins. Co.

    611 So. 2d 759 (La. Ct. App. 1992)

    This theory is not followed in those cases which distinguish between the obligation of primary and excess carriers. In Washam v. Chancellor, 507 So.2d 806 (La. 1987), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the threshold for an umbrella policy to take effect, relative to its UM coverage, is the $500,000 limit of the underlying liability policy which was a condition of the umbrella policy terms. In that case, because the insured elected to reduce his UM coverage limits from $500,000 to $10,000, there was a gap in coverage which the excess carrier was not obligated to fill.