APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND
FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET
NUMBER 669, 473, SECTION 26 HONORABLE RICHARD
"CHIP" MOORE, JUDGE
Adams Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant
Brittany M. Courtenay Metairie, Louisiana Attorney for
Defendant/Appellee Progressive Security Insurance Company
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
an appeal of a trial court judgment granting summary judgment
and dismissing a driver's suit against the automobile
owner's insurer for UM coverage. After review, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20, 2017, Joshua Williams (Mr. Williams) was driving a 2017
Infinity Q6-0, owned by Lionel Williams, westbound on
Hollywood Street in Baton Rouge when he was rear-ended by
Marcus Mosley (Mr. Mosley), who was driving a 2007 Chevrolet
Impala owned by Oliver Mosley. Mr. Mosley was uninsured.
Lionel Williams was insured by Progressive Security Insurance
17, 2018, Mr. Williams filed suit against Mr. Mosley and
Progressive. Progressive answered the suit and asserted that
it provided liability insurance to Lionel Williams; however,
it did not provide uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM)
coverage to Mr. Williams at the time of the accident as it
had been properly rejected on the policy. Progressive also
asserted alternative defenses.
Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting
that it did not provide UM coverage to Mr. Williams on the
date of the accident, as the UM coverage had been validly
rejected. In support of its motion for summary judgment,
Progressive attached to its memorandum the following
exhibits: the affidavit of Debra Henry, litigation
underwriting specialist and records custodian for
Progressive, attesting that Lionel Williams had rejected UM
coverage on Progressive policy 30206778; a certified copy of
the declarations page and Progressive policy 30206778 issued
to Lionel Williams; and an executed UM bodily injury coverage
form initialed and signed by Lionel Williams.
Williams filed an opposition to Progressive's motion for
summary judgment. He attached to his memorandum the following
exhibits: the affidavit of Lionel Williams, stating that he
signed the UM rejection form but did not enter his printed
name or the date on the form; Commissioner of Insurance
Bulletin No. 08-02; and the Progressive policy 30206778
motion for summary judgment was heard by the trial court on
November 5, 2018, and at the conclusion of the hearing the
trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive.
On December 3, 2018, the trial court signed a judgment
granting summary judgment in favor of Progressive and
dismissing the suit against Progressive with prejudice. Mr.
Williams appealed the judgment. Mr. Williams makes two
assignments of error on appeal. In his first assignment of
error, he maintains that the trial court erred in determining
that Lionel Williams's addition of seven vehicles to the
Progressive policy over a period of nine months did not
require the execution of a new UM bodily insurance coverage
form. In his second assignment of error, he maintains that
the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and
dismissing the case because Lionel Williams did not print his
name or enter the date on the UM bodily injury coverage form
and because there was no proof that those two sections of the
form were completed before Lionel Williams signed it.
determining whether summary judgment is appropriate,
appellate courts review summary judgment de novo under the
same criteria that govern the trial court's determination
of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Sanders v.
Ashland Oil, Inc., 96-1751 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/20/97),
696 So.2d 1031, 1035, writ denied, 97-1911 (La.
10/31/97), 703 So.2d 29. Because it is the applicable
substantive law that determines materiality, whether a
particular fact in dispute is material can be seen only in
light of the substantive law applicable to the case.