CHAPMAN v. DIGGS TRANSPORTATION LLC (2026)

Writ granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court ruling denying the motion for summary judgment is reinstated. Genuine issues of material fact remain regarding coverage required under La. R.S 32:900, as well as the circumstances concerning the procurement of the policy and the broker's role.

Louisiana law conceives of an insured more broadly than the person or entity named in the policy. La. R.S. 32:900(B)(2) requires that a motor vehicle liability policy insure the named insured and all his or her permissive users as “omnibus insured(s).” Adams v. Thomas, 98-2003, pp.4-5 (La. 4/13/99), 729 So. 2d 1041, 1042. The permissible exclusions from coverage for omnibus insureds are a matter solely for the legislature. Id., 98-2003, p.7, 729 So. 2d at 1044 (citing, as an example, La. R.S. 32:900(L), where “the legislature has declared that excluding a named driver, who is a member of the insured's household, does not violate the public policy which mandates omnibus liability coverage”). The legislature has provided an exception to the coverage requirement for commercial policies only if other coverage is actually obtained for an excluded driver. La. R.S. 32:900(B)(2)(d). Nothing in this record shows that alternative coverage was obtained here to authorize the application of that exception.

Treating an “unscheduled” driver as categorically uncovered in these circumstances is the equivalent of treating the driver as “excluded,” which would allow a judicially created exclusion not authorized under Louisiana law. In short, the court of appeal's approach would permit an insurer to issue a commercial liability policy that subverts the express statutory requirements. Justice Victory's concurrence in Adams recognized that this statutory obligation may be limited in the policy to mandatory minimum coverage. Id., 98-2003, 729 So. 2d at 1045 (citing La. R.S. 32:900(G)).¹

Because material factual disputes remain regarding the applicability of statutory minimum coverage, in addition to disputes concerning agency and procurement issues, summary judgment was improper. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Coverage defenses, including exclusions and limitations, may be waived by certain actions of the insurer, and every insurer has an obligation to treat all omnibus insureds with a duty of good faith and fair dealing or be responsible for all damages resulting from breach of that obligation notwithstanding policy limits. See, e.g., La. R.S. 22:1892(I) (formerly La. R.S. 22:1973); Steptore v. Masco Constr. Co., Inc., 93-2064 (La. 8/18/94), 643 So. 2d 1213.

PER CURIAM