Google Earth Images Ruled Admissible

Louisiana insurance law recognizes a practical problem faced by many: the need to obtain alternative transportation when the car won’t start. Under La. R.S. 22:1296, any insurance on your personal vehicle must also extend to vehicles that are used as “temporary substitute autos.”

The statute provides that a car’s status as a “temporary substitute auto” depends on how the term is defined in the particular auto policy at issue. However, some rules typically apply to determine whether the auto is a “temporary substitute.” First, the use must be temporary, i.e. limited in duration. Second, the car must be a substitute for the auto insured under the policy and used for the same purpose. Third, policies typically limit coverage to substitute vehicles that the driver does not own.

Some policies also limit coverage by requiring that the substitution be needed for a purpose identified in the policy, such as the breakdown, repair, or destruction of the covered auto.

While the statute generally defers to the definition of “temporary substitute auto” provided in the policy, sometimes courts will overrule the insurer’s definition. For instance, in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Safeway Insurance Company, 50-098 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/30/15), 180 So.3d 450, the relevant policy defined a “temporary substitute auto” as a substitute for the owned auto when the owned auto was “being serviced or repaired by a person engaged in the business of selling, repairing, or servicing motor vehicles.” The case involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred while the policy holder operated a borrowed vehicle but before she brought her usual vehicle to a mechanic.

Citing the terms of the policy, the insurer denied coverage on grounds that the policy required the “temporary substitute auto” not only take the place of the driver’s usual vehicle, but also that the driver take the car to a mechanic before coverage would extend to the substitute vehicle. However, the court found this requirement to be against the public policies behind La. R.S. 22:1296 and found coverage under the policy extended to the borrowed vehicle.

Drones play an increasing role in modern life; all indications are that this role will increase, maybe to disturbing levels. The popularity and availability of drones have sky-rocketed in recent years. As with most new technologies, the development of the law to regulate this technology lags behind. To their credit, the DOT and FAA have been pro-active in developing regulations. This article will address some of these regulations and the expected development of future regulations.

Initially, the FAA prohibited the use of drones in the commercial industry. Gradually, the FAA granted exemptions to certain companies for the commercial use of drones. These exemptions permitted these companies to use drones for:

(i) the movie and video industry;

(ii) real estate photography;

(iii) agricultural monitoring;

(iv) aerial surveying;

(v) delivery of medical supplies in rural areas; and,

(vi) inspecting flare stacks

Applying for exemptions can be costly and the outcome is not guaranteed. However with growing commercial demand, the FAA has gradually loosened its restrictions and granted more exemptions.

The FAA and DOT finalized the first operational rules for routine commercial use of drones which took effect in August 2016. These regulations are available at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf. The issuance of these regulations is projected to generate $82 billion for the U.S. economy and create more than 100,000 jobs over the next ten years.

While these regulations are fairly comprehensive, they prohibit the use of drones beyond the line of sight of the operator over unprotected persons on the ground. Further, there are limitations on size and when drones can be flown. Based on these restrictions, plans to use drones for delivery services will likely have to wait. However, the FAA is permitting companies to apply for waivers, available if companies demonstrate that the proposed flight will be conducted safely. Even if a drone flight is permitted, air traffic control authorization is required if the flight is in controlled airspace. Requests for waivers and authorization must be applied for on the FAA’s online portal located at https://www.faa.gov/uas/.

The FAA is trying to balance the benefits of drone use with its mission to protect public safety. The FAA also provides all drone users with recommended privacy guidelines and is set to issue new guidance to local and state governments on drone privacy concerns.

The White House announced that the FAA is currently working on developing regulations to permit the safe and beneficial use of drones over crowds. As part of this development, the FAA launched an Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team and a Drone Advisory Committee.

We expect the FAA to allow a more expansive use of drones in the years to come. Like it or not, the drones are here and are not going away; they are rising.

The nation’s first suit seeking a declaration of coverage under a commercial property policy for business interruption and extra expenses incurred as a result of COVID-19 was filed in a Louisiana state court on March 20, 2020. Since then, similar suits have been filed across the nation by restaurants, casinos, dentists, dive shops, movie theatres, repertory theatre companies, etc. Clearly, the same coverage issues raised in the Louisiana case will be litigated throughout the nation.

The suit in Cajun Conti, LLC, et al v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al, Suit No. 2020-02558, was filed on March 16, 2020, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs, doing business as Oceana Grill, a restaurant in the French Quarter, allege coverage should be declared to exist because: 1) the property policy is an “all risks” policy such that all risks are covered unless the insurer can clearly and specifically establish an exclusion from coverage; 2) the policy does not contain any exclusion “for losses from a virus or global pandemic;” 3) the virus has “physically impact[ed] public and private property” as it “physically infects and stays on the surface of objects or materials, ‘fomites,’ for up to twenty-eight days;” 4) such “contamination … [is] a direct physical loss needing remediation;” and, alternatively and in addition, 5) the current and future state orders limiting its operations serve to trigger the civil authority provisions of its policy.

A key issue in Cajun Conti as well as in the other COVID-19 business interruption coverage litigation will be whether the existence of the novel coronavirus constitutes a “direct physical loss or damage” under the intendment of an all risks property policy. The Cajun Conti plaintiffs cite to Widder v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2011-0196 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/10/11), 82 So.3d 294, writ denied, 2011-2336 (La. 12/2/11) for the premise that the existence of a hazardous condition that renders the insured property unusable or uninhabitable is sufficient to constitute a “physical loss or damage” sufficient to trigger coverage. Notably, in Widder, the actual presence of inorganic lead in the insured property was confirmed to exist and coverage was therefore available. Because policyholders have the burden to establish the existence of “physical loss or damage,” reliance on Widder may require the Cajun Conti plaintiffs to establish coronavirus was actually present in their property or that its presence otherwise caused their property to be unusable or uninhabitable. Presence in the community may not be sufficient to prove the coronavirus made the insured property uninhabitable or unusable.

One of the items of proof required for the triggering of coverage under the civil authority provisions of a commercial property policy is that the alleged business loss was caused by an action by the civil authority that prohibited access to the insured premises. Relying on out-of-state jurisprudence, one Louisiana federal court has determined this factor requires proof that access to the insured premises be “actually and completely prohibited,” which is not satisfied if the access is merely “limited or hampered.” Kean, Miller v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, C.A. No. 06-770 (M.D. La. Aug. 29, 2007), 2007 WL 2489711, *4-*6. The state orders expressly referenced in the Cajun Conti suit would appear not to satisfy this standard as they served only to limit occupancy and required earlier closures. Even the subsequent stay-at-home orders [Proclamation Number 33 JBE 2020 and 41 JBE 2020, issued respectively on March 22, 2020 and April 2, 2020], may likely be insufficient to satisfy this requirement as they do not expressly mandate closure of restaurants, but simply require restaurants to “reduce operations to continue minimum contact with members of the public,” expressly allow for curbside delivery, drive-thru, and delivery services, and only prohibit the consumption of food and beverages on site.

The specific facts of each business interruption claim and the terms of the relevant policy should be considered in every occasion. Yet, these suits may face problems of proof generally. For now, we expect the novel suits to continue.

John has been practicing over 30 years and is a Senior Partner with firm where he serves on the Management Committee. He has devoted attention to non-profit boards dedicated to assisting at risk children. He enjoys time with his three children and grandchildren. He also enjoys tennis and hiking.

Nancy B. Gilbert is a partner with Keogh Cox in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a puzzle-solver by nature, and specializes in providing clear and in-depth analysis of complex litigation issues.