Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

Rental Car Companies Duties Related to Insurance Coverage

February 1, 2022

Talbot M. Quinn

share this page

Rental car companies provide customers with vehicles to drive every day. However, under Louisiana law, these rental car companies are usually not liable for accidents that occur by the driver of a rental vehicle.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 32:861, the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law (“LMVSRL”), every motor vehicle shall be covered by an automobile liability policy with minimal liability limits required by the state. However, in enacting the LMVSRL the legislature, apparently recognizing the unique nature of rental car agencies, specifically stated in La. R.S. 32:1041 that vehicle owners "engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles" are not required to furnish proof of financial responsibility to satisfy any judgment entered against their lessees. Hearty v. Harris, 574 So.2d 1234, 1242 (La. 1991). The legislature did not intend rental agencies to bear the financial responsibility for the negligent actions of a lessee operating the leased vehicle in accordance with the terms of the lease. Id; Cenance v. Tassin, 2004 WL 575097, 2003-1379 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004).

La. R.S. 32:1041 (B) states specifically:

Any person, firm, association, or corporation licensed and engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles to be operated on the public highways shall only be required to furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against said person, firm, association, or corporation in his or its capacity as owner of the said motor vehicles, and shall not be required to furnish proof of its financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against the person to whom the motor vehicle was rented or leased at the time of the accident. La. R.S. 32:1041.

Louisiana law is clear that a self-insured rental agency is not required to provide omnibus insurance coverage on its vehicles.  Dennison v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 94-0026 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/10/94); 645 So.2d 1227; Hearty v. Harris, 574 So.2d 1234 (La. 1991); Weston v. Hollis, 26, 380 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/7/94); 647 So.2d 459.

In Washington v. Stephens Leasing, Inc., 540 So.2d 433 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989), plaintiff sued the commercial lessor of a vehicle, Stephens Leasing, Inc., driven by William Debruyn, the lessee, for damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the lessee.  The First Circuit reasoned that “…the duty of obtaining and maintaining liability insurance falls upon the appropriate person in a given situation.”  The lease in question clearly stated that the lessee was to procure and maintain the insurance on the vehicle. Thus, the duty of maintaining liability insurance on the vehicle fell to the lessee, Debruyn, not the lessor.  Washington, 540 So.2d 433, 435 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989).  The First Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision to grant Stephens Leasing, Inc.’s Exception of No Cause of Action.

Additionally, in Dennisonsupra, the First Circuit held that automobile lessors need only insure themselves as owners and need not insure their lessees. The court reasoned that any liability coverage extended to a lessee by a rental agreement is in the nature of a voluntary “automobile liability policy” and such a policy could be contractually limited through the lease agreement between the insured and lessee.

Automobile lessors are not required to offer any insurance at all to their customers to cover a customer’s potential liability to third parties.  Any such liability insurance extended by a rental agency, whether as a self-insurer or through an insurance policy, is in the nature of a “voluntary automobile liability policy.”  Collins v. Randall, 836 So.2d 352, 2002-0209 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/2/02); Hearty v. Harris, 574 So.2d 1234 (La. 1991).

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.