Jones et al v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
ORDER and REASONS denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/30/2017. (cbs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANSEL COLLINS JONES and
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
SECTION "N" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant
Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that the
motion (Rec. Doc. 10) is DENIED.
Plaintiff Ansel Jones was injured in an automobile accident that occurred on
December 18, 2013. The accident occurred when another vehicle ran a stop sign and struck the
BMW that Ms. Jones was driving. The driver of the other vehicle did not have liability insurance
at the time of the accident.
The BMW that Ms. Jones was driving at the time of the accident was purchased by
Mr. Jones before he and Ms. Jones married and remained his separate property. Ms. Jones owned
a 2002 Honda Accord as separate property. At the time of the accident, however, Ms. Jones was
driving her husband's BMW because her Honda was having transmission problems. The BMW was
insured by Allstate under a policy of insurance containing a waiver of uninsured motorist coverage.
Ms. Jones had a separate Allstate insurance policy for her Honda. Her policy, however, unlike Mr.
Jones' policy, provided uninsured motorist coverage. See Rec. Doc. 10-11, at p. 7.
In support of its motion, Defendant Allstate contends that Ms. Jones' Allstate policy
provides no UM coverage for the injuries she suffered as a result of the December 18, 2013 accident
because the automobile she was driving at the time of the accident, Mr. Jones' BMW, is not an
"insured vehicle" as that term is defined in the policy. See Rec. Doc. 10-4, p. 4; Rec. Doc. 10-12,
p. 7 of 21 - p. 8 of 21. Significantly, however, Defendant has not demonstrated that the UM
coverage provided by Ms. Jones' policy necessarily requires the involvement of an "insured
vehicle." Rather, the policy states with respect to UM coverage:
Uninsured Motorists Insurance Coverage SS
We will pay those damages which an insured person is legally
entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured auto
(1) bodily injury sustained by an insured person,
(2) property damage to your insured auto, if a separate limit is
shown on the Policy Declarations for Uninsured Motorists Insurance
- Property Damage[.]
Bodily injury or property damage must be caused by accident and
arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured
See Rec. Doc. 10-12, p. 7 of 21. There is no dispute that Ms. Jones is an insured person under the
policy at issue and that she seeks recovery for bodily injury caused by the owner or operator of an
uninsured auto. Accordingly, on the instant showing made, Defendant Allstate's motion is denied.1
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of January 2017.
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Clerk to Copy:
Magistrate Judge Knowles
The Court notes that Defendant's motion and memoranda offer no treatment of
Exclusion (1) to the UM coverage provided by the policy issued to Ms. Jones. The exclusion
Exclusions - What is not covered
We will not pay for damages an insured person is legally entitled to
recover because of:
(1) bodily injury to an insured person while in, on, getting into, or out
of a motor vehicle owned by you or the injured insured person, if the
motor vehicle is not insured for this coverage under this policy.
See Rec. Doc. 10-12, p. 8 of 21. The terms "You" or Your" are defined by the policy as "the policy
holder named on the Policy Declarations and that policyholder's resident spouse. " Id. Defendant's
reply confirms, however, that "Allstate is not asserting the applicability of any exclusion." See Rec.
Doc. 15, p. 2.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?