Leake Andersson Secures Dual Wins Reinforcing Limits on Multiple UM Recoveries
Leake Andersson attorneys Dean Arruebarrena, Jason Bonnet, and Leila D’Aquin recently attained excellent results in both the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal and the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court (JDC) for our client, an issuer of commercial policies that provide uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage to insureds’ employees.
Both cases raised issues under Louisiana’s anti-stacking statute, La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c), which bars a person injured in a car accident while working from recovering against both their personal line of UM insurance and their employer’s line.
Lanclos v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.
In the Third Circuit case, Lanclos v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2025-129, p. 3 (La. App. 3 Cir. 9/17/25), the plaintiff was driving her personal vehicle, in the course and scope of her employment, when she was involved in an accident caused by an underinsured driver.
State Farm was the insurer for both the plaintiff and the at-fault driver. The plaintiff settled for full policy limits with State Farm—both as the liability insurer for the other driver and as her own UM insurer.
She then filed suit seeking underinsured benefits against Leake Andersson’s client under a policy issued by our client to her employer. The trial court held that the anti-stacking law prevented recovery of multiple UM benefits under these circumstances and granted summary judgment.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the anti-stacking provision “limits a person who is driving their own vehicle to the UM benefits of a single policy; thus, Ms. Lanclos could not access the UM coverage under her employer’s policy.”
Madden v. Fairburn
A similar issue was presented in Madden v. Fairburn, No. 111549 (La. 22nd J.D.C. 10/3/25). In that case, the plaintiff had, in 2016, been a passenger in a vehicle owned and driven by her private driver, who was found solely at fault for causing an accident in which the plaintiff was injured. The at-fault driver was uninsured.
In 2017, the plaintiff collected the full UM benefit available from her insurer under her own personal auto policy. Five years later, she asserted a claim under a policy held by her employer, asserting that she should be able to receive UM benefits under that policy for the same injuries for which she had already collected from her own UM insurer.
Leake Andersson moved for summary judgment on behalf of the employer’s insurer. The motion was granted. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to retroactively rescind her prior acceptance of benefits from her own insurer. It also denied her alternative argument that her case fit within the anti-stacking statute’s narrow exception.
That exception applies only when an injured person is riding in a vehicle they do not own and that vehicle has UM coverage. This instance would allow collection from two UM policies (one primary and one additional). Because the vehicle involved in the plaintiff’s accident was uninsured, the exception did not apply.
The court ruled that under the plain language of the anti-stacking provision, the plaintiff could not collect under more than one UM policy.
Protecting Clients Through Strategic Motion Practice
These summary judgment victories protect our client from the expense and uncertainty associated with trial and underscore Leake Andersson’s commitment to strategic motion practice. Through deep legal analysis and precise application of Louisiana law, our attorneys continue to deliver cost-effective, decisive outcomes for the insurers and businesses we represent.
