# Chauncy v. Allen

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · February 26, 2016 · 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0874

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4827241

## Case

- **Full name:** Terry CHAUNCY and Jennifer Chauncy v. Patrick ALLEN, Jr., Louisiana National Guard, State Military Affairs-Armories, and the State of Louisiana, Progressive Insurance
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** February 26, 2016
- **Citations:** 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0874; 191 So. 3d 25; 2016 La. App. LEXIS 384; 2016 WL 759923
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Crain
- **Judges:** Crain, Higginbotham, Pettigrew
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4827241

## Opinion text

CRAIN, J.,
dissenting.
| ]The Mountain Laurel policy ■ excludes coverage for vehicles “to which no liability bond or policy, or deposit of cash or securities in lieu of such liability policy, applies at the time of the accident and which- is owned ... by a self-insurer under any applicable motor vehicle law, except a self-insurer that is or becomes insolvent.” While Mountain Laurel offered an answer to interrogatories where the State Military Department states it is “pelf-insured” and that Allen is covered under the State’s “self-insurance,” I do not believe that answer satisfies Mountain Laurel’s burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ,.
The issue presented by the specific language of the Mountain Laurel policy is whether the state is “a self-insurer under any applicable motor vehicle law,” not whether .it is generically “self-insured.” The State Military Department’s answer to discovery does not resolve, that question. Therefore, it is immaterial that, the plaintiff did not oppose that , answer. The policy exclusion requires a self-insurer “under any applicable motor vehicle law.” I disagree with the.Fourth Circuit’s decision in Sumner that reads that provision out of the policy. I would reverse the summary judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4827241. Public record. Not legal advice.