BROADCASTS.com

b'

No Right to UM Coverage if You are not an Insured\\nWRIT PRACTICE OFTEN UNSUCCESSFUL BUT NOT ALWAYS\\n\\nThe Louisiana Court of Appeals was asked to do what it normally would \\nnot do: determine if the trial court erred in denying a motion for \\nsummary judgment filed by Employers Mutual Casualty Company ("Employers \\nMutual"). In Lee Mallahan, III v.\\xa0 Employers Mutual Casualty Co., et al,\\n No. 55,136-CW, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit (September\\n 27, 2023) Employers received its request.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nOn June 1, 2020, Erick Guevara ("Guevara"), drove to Mallahan\\u2019s house \\nwho was standing in the driveway picking up worms from the pavement and \\nthrowing them into the grass, only to strike Mallahan with Guevera\\u2019s \\ntruck. Mallahan alleged the pickup truck knocked him into the air and \\ncaused him to lose consciousness. Mallahan sued on April 21, 2021 and \\nnamed as defendants Guevera and Employers Mutual.\\n\\nAs the managing member and an employee of Tadpole, LLC ("Tadpole"), \\nMallahan alleged that Employers Mutual provided "insurance coverage, \\nexcess coverage, umbrella coverage, or other coverage" for Mallahan\'s \\ndamages.\\n\\nEmployers Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment and urged no \\nuninsured/underinsured ("UM") coverage existed for Mallahan\'s injuries \\nunder the terms of the commercial auto policy or the commercial umbrella\\n policy issued to Tadpole.\\n\\nThe trial court ordered that Mallahan raised genuine issues of material \\nfact and denied the motion. Employers Mutual Sought a writ from the \\nCourt of Appeals to order the trial court to grant its motion for \\nsummary judgment.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nEmployers Mutual urged that, because it made a showing that Mallahan was\\n not an insured under the policies issued to Tadpole there was no \\ngenuine issue of material fact to preclude the granting of summary \\njudgment.\\n\\nA genuine issue is one about which reasonable people could disagree. \\xa0A material fact is one that potentially ensures or precludes recovery, affects the ultimate success of the litigant, or determines the outcome of the dispute. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material\\n for summary judgment purposes can be seen only in light of the \\nsubstantive law applicable to the case.\\n\\nSummary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion, under which coverage could be afforded.