McDill v. Utica Mutual Insurance

The majority holds that Utica’s refusal to pay cannot be found arbitrary and capricious under La.R.S. 22:6581 because it never received satisfactory proof of loss as required by that statute. The parties stipulated at trial that the first notice of McDill’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits was the filing of this suit on March 12, 1982.

Hart v. Allstate Insurance Company, 437 So.2d 823 (La.1983) holds a “satisfactory proof of loss” within the meaning of La.R.S. 22:658 is that which is sufficient to fully apprise the insurer of the insured’s claim. Hart, 437 So.2d at 828. To establish a…