FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2014-04168,
DIVISION "L-6" Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge
Matthew D. Hemmer MORRIS BART, LLC COUNSEL FOR
Minor Pipes, III Susan M. Rogge BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN
FREEMAN & SARVER, L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.
composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Joy Cossich
Lobrano, Judge Marion F. Edwards, Pro Tempore
L. BELSOME, JUDGE
appellants, Zachary and Andree Addison (the Addisons), appeal
the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor
of LM General Insurance Company.
11, 2013, Zachary Addison's automobile was rear-ended by
Phara Martin. Thereafter, the Addisons filed suit against Ms.
Martin, Affirmative Insurance Company, Martin's liability
insurer, and Liberty Mutual, which they allege provided
uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage to
General filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the
dismissal of the Addisons' claims for UM bodily injury
(UMBI) coverage. The motion for summary judgment was based on
Mr. Addison electronically selecting economic-only UMBI
coverage. The trial court granted the motion for summary
judgment and limited LM General's coverage to
economic-only UMBI. This appeal followed.
well settled that motions for summary judgment are reviewed
de novo on appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 966 provides that
"a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the
motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there
is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 
Addison obtained insurance from LM General by receiving a
quote via telephone. He was then given the option to complete
his transaction by executing emailed documents that could be
returned by mail, fax, or electronically. He chose to
complete and submit the documents electronically. The
electronic documents had selections of coverage pre-made
based on the quote he received. The preselected information
could not be changed and Mr. Addison did not inquire about
changing the selections any time prior to executing and
returning the documents. There is no dispute that the
documents were electronically signed by Mr. Addison.
Additionally, Mr. Addison was sent a copy of the policy prior
to its effective date.
appeal, the Addisons raise numerous assignments of error that
all pertain to the validity of the UM rejection form that was
e-signed by Mr. Addison and provided for economic-only UMBI
UMBI coverage is required by Louisiana law to be in the same
amount as the policy limits of bodily injury liability
coverage. However, the law allows a named insured to
select lower limits for UMBI coverage, reject UMBI coverage
completely, or select economic-only UMBI coverage on a form
prescribed by the Commissioner of Insurance. In Duncan v.
U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth
six requirements for a valid UM form. Those requirements are: 1)
initialing the selection or rejection of coverage chosen; 2)
if limits lower than the policy limits are chosen (available
in options 2 and 4), then filling in the amount of coverage
selected for each person and each accident; 3) printing the
name of the named insured or legal representative; 4) signing
the name of the named insured or legal representative; 5)
filling in the policy number; and 6) filling in the
the Addisons assert that the UM rejection form that Mr.
Addison e-signed was deficient in meeting the Duncan
criteria, we disagree. The Addisons assert that the UM form
rejection form should fail because the coverage was
preselected and could not be changed and his name and date do
not appear in the designated area on the form. In addition to
raising an issue about the proximity of the insured's
name and date ...