Progressive Insurance How to Upload Rejection Form

Is uninsured/underinsured ("UM") coverage an automatic component of commercial auto insurance policies?  Are at that place instances when an insured can reject UM coverage in its entirety or select lower limits of UM coverage for a commercial auto insurance policy?  Although La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(a)(i) indicates that all motorcar insurance policies issued within Louisiana must include UM coverage, subsection 1295(ane)(a)(iii) allows for a named insured to either reject UM coverage in its entirety or select UM coverage with lower limits.  In a contempo case out of Calctsieu Parish, Louisiana, an employee learned that while his employer carried a valid commercial auto insurance policy with at the time of his blow, the employer executed a valid UM rejection grade prior to the accident that remained in full issue.

On June 21, 2013, Lonny Hayes, an employee of O'Neal's Feeder Supply, Inc., sustained astringent injuries in an motorcar accident after Diana Gonzales failed to adhere to a traffic sign and collided with Mr. Hayes' work vehicle.  Following insufficient recovery for damages from Ms. Gonzales' insurer, Country Subcontract Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Mr. Hayes and his wife, Melissa Hayes sued their insurer, Progressive Security Insurance Company, and O'Neal's insurer, Penn Millers Insurance Visitor.  Mr. and Mrs. Hayes claimed that both policies from Progressive and Penn Millers provided UM coverage from which they could secure additional funds from to cover their damages. Penn Millers denied Mr. and Mrs. Hayes' claims, indicating that O'Neal'south executed a UM rejection form for the commercial machine insurance policy that was in full effect on the engagement of Mr. Hayes' blow.  Therefore, Penn Millers argued that there was no UM coverage available for recovery. Shortly thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Hayes filed a Movement for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether Penn Millers' commercial auto insurance policy provided UM coverage. On Jan 21, 2016, the trial courtroom granted Mr. and Mrs. Hayes' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding no valid UM rejection form existed for O'Neal's commercial auto insurance policy in total issue on the date of Mr. Hayes' accident and therefore, UM coverage was available for recovery.

On entreatment, Penn Millers asserted that the trial court erred in finding no valid UM rejection form existed for O'Neal'southward commercial auto insurance policy in full effect on the date of Mr. Hayes' accident.  Penn Millers argued that the UM rejection form executed by O'Neal'south on June v, 2007, remained in full issue on June 21, 2013, because the same policy had been renewed annually from 2007 thru to 2013. Pursuant to La. R. S. 22:1295(1)(a)(ii), a UM rejection form that is executed past the insured or the insured'southward legal representative and initially rejects UM coverage in its entirety or selects UM coverage with lower limits remains in full constructive for the life of a policy, regardless of whether the policy is renewed, reinstated, substituted, or amended.  In support of this argument, Penn Millers produced vii annunciation pages that corresponded to the commercial auto insurance policy initially issued to O'Neal's in 2007 and after renewed thru to 2013. Specifically, each declaration folio after 2007 included the aforementioned identification number with an exception of changing the last 2 digits to signify the year the policy was in result.

Additionally, Penn Millers argued that the UM rejection form executed by O'Neal's on June v, 2007, was valid considering it included the half dozen requirements prescribed past the commissioner of insurance.  Pursuant to the commissioner of insurance, a UM rejection class is deemed valid when it includes the following components: (1) the insured'south of insured's legal representative's initials next to the selection or rejection of the coverage chosen; (2) the amounts of coverage selected for each person and each accident, if lower limits of UM coverage are chosen; (three) the insured's or insured's legal representative's printed name; (4) the insured's or insured's legal representative's signature; (5) the policy number; and (six) the date. Duncan v. USAA Ins. Co. , 950 Then.2d 544 (La. 2006).   Failure to comply with one of the above half dozen requirements, usually results in a UM rejection form existence deemed as invalid.  All the same, in limited circumstances, an omission of a policy number from a UM rejection form does not deem the form invalid. Carter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins Co. , 964 So.2d 375 (La. 2007) .  Although Mr. and Mrs. Hayes asserted that the UM rejection form executed on June 5, 2007, was invalid because it failed to include a policy number, Penn Millers produced an affidavit indicating that the policy number was non bachelor at the time O'Neal's legal representative executed the UM rejection form.

Subsequent to assay of applicative constabulary and documentary prove produced by Penn Millers, the appellate court reversed the trial court'southward judgment, finding the UM rejection form executed past O'Neal's on June 5, 2007, was in full effect on the date of Mr. Hayes' accident.  Consequently, in deciding whether or non to refuse UM coverage in its entirety or select lower limits of UM coverage, it is important to identify and evaluate the effects of doing such. Because insurance coverage can be circuitous, it is brash that a knowledgeable and experienced personal injury chaser is consulted to assist.

Additional Sources: Lonny Hayes v. Viviana Trevino de Barton, et al.

Written past Berniard Law Business firm Weblog Author: Ashley Werdann

Additional Berniard Law House Articles on UM Coverage Rejection: Courtroom of Appeals Rules Electronic Signature Valid for Uninsured Motorist Coverage Rejection

dwyergioneds.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.louisianapersonalinjurylawyerblog.com/uninsured-motorist-coverage-rejected-remains-in-effect-with-insurance-renewal/