Key Holding

In Chisesi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s decision in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that a UM insurance provider acted arbitrarily, capriciously and without probable cause in violation of La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973.1

Factual and Procedural Background

On December 4, 2022, Nicholas Chisesi (“Plaintiff”) was involved in an automobile accident involving three vehicles: (1) a 2001 Lexus; (2) a 2021 Mercedes Benz; and (3) Plaintiff’s 2009 Mercedes Benz. In his lawsuit following the accident, Plaintiff alleged that National General provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserted bad faith claims under La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973 against his UM carrier, National General, alleging untimely and insufficient UM tenders despite what he views as satisfactory proof of loss.

National General received notice of the accident on December 5, 2022, and a copy of the police report on December 8, 2022. Several emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and National General show that, on March 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent various documentation, including Plaintiff’s medical records and an affidavit of no insurance covering the Lexus. Plaintiff’s attorney also demanded payment of the UM policy limits.

On April 14, 2023, National General informed Plaintiff’s attorney that it had identified additional liability policies potentially associated with the at-fault driver through an insurance database search, and that the applicability and limits of those policies were still uncertain.

On April 27, 2023, National General received documentation showing that policy limits were tendered on March 16, 2023, by the Lexus’ insurer. Although Plaintiff previously sent National General an affidavit of no other insurance for the Lexus, National General did not obtain an affidavit of no other insurance for the at-fault driver, nor did it receive a certification from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections concerning the at-fault driver’s insurance status.

On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff was made aware that coverage was denied under the policy insuring the Honda CR-V. Plaintiff sent this information to National General on August 25, 2023.

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff received notice that the Dodge Journey was also not covered. Plaintiff sent this information to National General on July 19, 2023. The Ford Edge’s policy limits were tendered to Plaintiff on September 25, 2023. Plaintiff reported the payment to National General on November 6, 2023.

From March 2023 through May 2024, Plaintiff’s attorney continued to send medical records to National General and requested payment of UM benefits. National General continued investigating underlying coverages and found in March 2024, that the underlying limits had been sufficiently established so as to trigger National General’s UM coverage. On March 18, 2024, National General tendered payment to Plaintiff under the UM policy.

Following National General’s first tender, Plaintiff sent National General additional medical records indicating he had restarted treatment. As a result, National General tendered the remaining UM policy limits to Plaintiff on June 17, 2024.

The case went to a bench trial on April 30, 2025, limited to Plaintiff’s bad faith claims against National General. On June 30, 2025, the trial court issued an order finding that Plaintiff “‘has not met his burden of preponderance of the evidence to prove that [National General] committed bad faith under the statutes of La. R.S. 22:1973, La. R.S. 22:1892, or the relevant caselaw from the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.’” Plaintiff then appealed.

Law & Analysis

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit noted that there were legitimate questions regarding whether there was additional coverage available under which Plaintiff could recover for the subject accident. The evidence reflected that prior to its first tender payment, National General was awaiting proof of the underlying liability limits necessary to determine whether and to what extent its UM obligations had been triggered.

Plaintiff did not provide any evidence which would require payment under the UM policy, and National General identified other potentially applicable policies and communicated those findings to Plaintiff. After receipt of satisfactory proof that there were no other sources of insurance coverage, National General tendered payment thirteen days later – thus, Plaintiff failed to prove the first tender was untimely. Plaintiff also failed to prove said tender was insufficient, as the only evidence regarding damages available was Plaintiff’s medical records which were adequately covered by the payment.

The Fifth Circuit likewise found that the second payment was both timely and sufficient, as National General only received evidence of Plaintiff’s continued and future medical treatment on a later date, after which National General timely tendered the remaining policy limits.

The Fifth Circuit noted that, even if the second tender payment was untimely, the evidence did not establish that National General’s conduct was arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause. National General did not act in bad faith when it withheld payment based on its legitimate questions and reasonable dispute regarding coverage or the amount owed for Plaintiff’s accident. Because the amount owed under the UM policy was reasonably disputed, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling that National General did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner or without probably cause.

Takeaway

Chisesi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. provides a simplified summary of the complex statutes and jurisprudence behind Louisiana’s bad faith insurance statutes. Many plaintiff attorneys attempt to characterize any payment issued by an insurer following thirty days of demand or a base amount of evidence as untimely and arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause. However, as the Fifth Circuit held in this case, insurers are entitled to fully investigate legitimate questions as to coverage and/or the amount in dispute.

The Fifth Circuit’s holding provides beneficial support for UM defendants, as it is now clear they are entitled to reasonable investigations into whether other sources of insurance exist before tendering payment.

1 Chisesi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 25-512 (La. App. 5 Cir. 05/20/26); 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1019.

The post Clarity on Bad Faith and UM Coverage appeared first on MBLB.