BROADCASTS.com

b'

Jurisdiction Chosen by Contract of Insurance Must be Followed\\nClear & Unambiguous Policy Conditions Must be Followed\\n\\nGovernment Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter \\u201cGEICO\\u201d) sought \\nreview of the trial court\'s July 12, 2023 judgment denying its motion \\nfor partial summary judgment.\\n\\nIn Washington Dos Santos v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Government \\nEmployees Insurance Company And Carrie Ann Rainey, No. 2023-C-0559, \\nCourt of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (September 18, 2023) \\nresolved the dispute.\\n\\nRELEVANT FACTS\\n\\nWashington Dos Santos sued for damages asserting damages as a result of a\\n motor vehicle accident. Dos Santos named GEICO as a defendant in its \\ncapacity as the uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer of the vehicle \\nhe was operating at the time of the accident. In his petition for \\ndamages, Dos Santos asserted that GEICO violated Louisiana\'s penalty \\nstatutes which require that an insurer be fair in its handling of claims\\n and tender payment when satisfactory proof of loss is established.\\n\\nOn April 23, 2023, GEICO filed a motion for partial summary judgment \\nasserting that Respondent\'s claim under his insurance policy contract \\ndictates that all claims are subject to North Carolina law and \\ntherefore, Louisiana\'s penalty statutes are inapplicable. GEICO averred \\nthat the policy was issued to Respondent at a North Carolina address; \\nRespondent has a North Carolina driver\'s license; and the vehicle is \\nregistered in North Carolina.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nTo succeed in a motion for summary judgment there must be a genuine \\nissue of material fact. A genuine issue is one to which reasonable \\npersons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one \\nconclusion, no need for trial on that issue exists and summary judgment \\nis appropriate.\\n\\nGEICO maintained the trial court erred in denying its motion for partial\\n summary judgment because the insurance policy specifically mandates \\nRespondent\'s claim is subject to North Carolina law and thus, \\nLouisiana\'s penalty statutes are inapplicable. GEICO did so because Dos \\nSantos\\u2019 policy provided, in pertinent part: \\u201cThis policy is issued in \\naccordance with the laws of North Carolina and covers property or risks \\nprincipally located in North Carolina. Any and all claims or disputes in\\n any way related to this policy shall be governed by the laws of North \\nCarolina.\\u201d\\n\\nCLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY WORDING\\n\\nDos Santos\\u2019 insurance policy mandates application of North Carolina law.\\n The language in the policy is clear and unambiguous thus, it must be enforced as written.\\n\\nWhen the words of an insurance contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties\' intent and courts must enforce the contract as written. The language contained in GEICO\'s policy with Respondent are \\nclear, North Carolina law applies to any disputes or claims.\\n\\nGEICO satisfied its burden of establishing that the language of the \\ncontract of insurance is clear and unambiguous and that North Carolina \\nlaw applies. Therefore, the trial court\'s judgment denying GEICO\'s \\nmotion for partial summary judgment was reversed.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nPeople like Mr. Dos Santos want to punish an insurer that fails to pay \\nwhat they want so they can profit from an insurance policy. Louisiana allows an insurer to be penalized and North Carolina does not. Since the policy clearly stated that the law of North Carolina applied and the fact that the accident happened in Louisiana was irrelevant. Regardless of the desires of an insured to punish his insurer the contract wording controls the interpretation of an insurance policy.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.