Change in Statute Has no Effect on Rejection of UM Coverage

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rejection-uninsured-motorist-coverage-continues-every-barry and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3600 posts. 

Insurance companies, on rare occasions sue other insurance companies over which is responsible for a claim where there is a potential dual coverage. Such lawsuits are seldom beneficial to the insurers or the insurance industry.

In Mary Reaney-Gates v. Teodoro Rivera Mendoza, The Hanover American Insurance Company, NO. 2020-CA-0298, Court Of Appeal Louisiana (February 3, 2021) an insurance coverage dispute from a 2010 automobile accident GEICO and Hanover was issued in favor of Hannover and GEICO appealed.

ZALMA OPINION

When an insured rejects UM coverage properly and for 12 years accepts renewal without such coverage the insured intentionally and effectively rejected the coverage. To claim, by asserting law changes requiring new policies to require a specific rejection on each new policy does not change the fact that Gates continually rejected UM coverage with every one of the 12 annual renewals. Courts should not change a policy wording without evidence of mutual mistake or fraud. None existed and that is why the judgment was reversed.