INSURANCE-RELATED COURT CASES
Digested from case reports published online
COURT DECISIONS
Party ends with no UM protection
While Mardi Gras in Louisiana is usually a period of joy and amusement for most revelers, it can include problematic situations. The latter was certainly true for Santo Guerrera (Guerrera).
Guerrera had hired the services of Uber through a mobile application. While a passenger, the vehicle was rear-ended. The driver causing the collision and the errant vehicle were unidentified, as that driver left the accident scene.
Guerrera claimed that he suffered bodily injury as a result of the accident. He sued for coverage from an insurer he identified as providing insurance for the Uber vehicle, United Financial Casualty Company (UFCC). Later, his suit was amended to include two additional defendants—Uber Technologies and Raiser, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary.
Guerrera’s motion for summary judgment was denied by a district court while UFCC’s motion to dismiss was granted. Besides denying Guerrera’s request for judgment in his favor, the district court also ruled that his request to certify a question to the Louisiana Supreme court was moot. Guerrera immediately appealed.
The question was accepted by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it began its consideration of whether Guerrera was owed uninsured motorist coverage under the UFCC policy. As the question had never come up before in the state, the higher court stated that it must consider Louisiana law and answer the question in the manner that the state’s high court would likely respond.
Louisiana requires that vehicle owners carry insurance protection including uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The law also applied to transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber. Guerrera argued that, due to this requirement, UFCC, as Uber’s insurer, was obligated to provide UM protection for the bodily injuries he claimed he received during the hit and run in the Uber vehicle.
In opposition, UFCC et al. maintained its argument, holding that Louisiana’s insurance requirements controlled the situation. While insurance coverage had to be secured by TNCs, the statutes also allowed entities to waive (reject) UM and UIM coverage and Uber had taken the steps to do so.
Guerrera maintained his position that Louisiana’s insurance requirement statutes did not apply to TNCs. The higher court found otherwise after it examined cases that involved taxicab companies. The court believed that such cases were relevant since they offered the same services as TNCs as well as presented the same set of exposures to the general public.
In the court’s view, state statutes that applied to TNCs contained a direct reference to the law that permitted the formal rejection of UM and UIM protection. Therefore, it found no compelling data to support Guerrera’s position. The higher court, on the basis of examining the applicable statutes as well as relevant cases, affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of UFCC including a finding that Guerrera failed to support his request for certification.
Santo Guerrera v. United Financial Casualty Company; Raiser, LLC; Uber Technologies, Inc.—United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—No. 25-30085—December 15, 2025.
