How UM and UIM Coverage Changes Settlement Strategy in Louisiana

How Do UM and UIM Coverage Change Settlement Strategy in Louisiana?

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage changes settlement strategy in Louisiana by adding a second source of payment: your own insurance company. Instead of one negotiation with the at-fault driver’s carrier, the claim becomes a sequenced negotiation across two policies. The order of your moves determines how much of each policy you can actually reach.

That sequencing is the strategic core. A claim against the at-fault driver’s insurer is a third-party negotiation with a company that owes you nothing beyond what its insured legally owes. A claim under your own UM or UIM coverage, governed in Louisiana by La. R.S. 22:1295, is a first-party claim under a contract you paid for. The two claims run on different rules, and decisions made in one directly affect what remains available in the other.

Most Louisiana UM and UIM disputes start the same way. The at-fault driver’s policy is too small for the documented damages, and the injured person needs a path to additional coverage without forfeiting it along the way. Getting that path right means knowing what the coverage is, whether it exists on your policies, how Louisiana layers it on top of the liability policy, and what steps preserve the claim before any release is signed.

Sequencing a liability settlement against a UM claim turns on what UM and UIM coverage are under Louisiana law, whether the coverage is required, how to confirm it exists, how the excess-coverage structure works, stacking, the rules that drive settlement value, the step-by-step calculation, comparative fault, settling with the at-fault driver first, what proof forces payment, bad-faith leverage, and the deadlines that govern all of it.

What Are UM and UIM Coverage Under Louisiana Law?

Uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage are a single coverage under Louisiana law, not two separate products. La. R.S. 22:1295 provides that uninsured motorist coverage encompasses underinsured motorist protection. Under the same statute, every Louisiana auto liability policy includes this coverage unless the named insured rejects it in writing on a form prescribed by the Commissioner of Insurance. That written rejection remains valid for the life of the policy.

What Uninsured Motorist Coverage Does

UM coverage responds when the at-fault driver carries no liability insurance at all. Instead of pursuing an individual with no policy behind them, you present the claim to your own carrier under your own policy.

That structure changes who sits across the table. The claim runs against your own insurance company, not against a stranger’s carrier.

What Underinsured Motorist Coverage Does

UIM coverage responds when the at-fault driver has a policy with limits too small for the harm caused. A serious crash can produce medical bills and lost wages that a small liability policy cannot absorb. UIM coverage supplies a second layer of insurance for the shortfall the at-fault driver’s policy leaves behind.

Why the Single-Coverage Structure Matters

You do not buy or claim UM and UIM separately in Louisiana. One policy provision responds whether the at-fault driver carried nothing or carried too little, and the same carrier handles both kinds of claims.

For a reader checking a declarations page, that means one line item to look for rather than two. How the rejection requirement works in practice, and how to verify what a specific policy includes, is addressed later on this page.

Is UM/UIM Coverage Required in Louisiana?

Yes, by default. La. R.S. 22:1295 writes UM coverage into a Louisiana auto liability policy by operation of law unless the named insured rejects it, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage on the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Insurance. That single statutory default drives everything else in this section.

What the Statutory Default Means in Practice

The policyholder never has to ask for the coverage. Silence produces it. Only a signed, documented choice on the prescribed form removes or reduces it.

The practical result is that a Louisiana auto policy can carry a UM/UIM layer even when the policyholder does not remember requesting it or paying a separate premium for it. Whether a particular signed form actually accomplished a rejection or reduction is a separate question, and the section on confirming coverage walks through how to test that paperwork.

Why the Default Matters: Louisiana’s Minimum Limits Are Low

La. R.S. 32:900(B) sets the mandatory minimum liability limits at $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident for bodily injury, plus $25,000 for property damage. A single surgery or an extended course of treatment can cost more than $15,000. When the at-fault driver bought only the minimum, the distance between the medical bills and the available liability limits is the space a UM/UIM layer fills.

That gap is why this question comes first in any settlement analysis on this page. Before valuing a claim against a minimum-limits policy, find out whether a UM/UIM layer sits above it. The statutory default is the reason that layer exists more often than policyholders expect.

How Do You Confirm Whether Louisiana UM/UIM Coverage Exists?

You confirm UM/UIM coverage by collecting two documents and reading them side by side: the complete auto policy and the executed UM selection form. Both documents get compared against the text of La. R.S. 22:1295, the Louisiana statute that governs UM coverage and its rejection. A carrier’s verbal statement that coverage was rejected starts the document request. It does not end the investigation.

Read the Executed Selection Form, Not Just the Declarations Page

A declarations page marked “UM rejected” does not settle the question on its own. A rejection, a choice of lower limits or a choice of economic-only coverage counts only if it is made on the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Insurance and signed by the named insured or a legal representative. A properly completed and signed form creates a presumption, which can be rebutted, that the insured knowingly made that choice. A form that was signed but not properly completed does not create the presumption, and it still removes or reduces the coverage if it is shown that the insured meant to reject or reduce it (La. R.S. 22:1295). Without a valid choice, the policy carries UM coverage at no less than its bodily injury liability limits.

The verification steps are document work, not argument. Request the executed selection form from the carrier in writing. Compare each blank, initial, and signature against the prescribed format instead of accepting the carrier’s summary of it. Keep the form in the claim file, because the coverage answer for the entire claim turns on what that single document shows.

Check Which Coverage Type the Named Insured Selected

The same form answers a second question: what kind of coverage the named insured chose. La. R.S. 22:1295 describes an option for an insured to select economic-only UM coverage, which under that statute excludes general (non-economic) damages. Reading the selection portion of the form therefore tells you two things at once. It shows whether coverage exists at all, and it shows whether that coverage reaches the full loss or only its economic portion.

Request Every Policy That Could Apply

A complete coverage check does not stop at one policy. As a document-gathering step, request the policy and the UM selection form for the injured person’s own auto policy, for policies issued to relatives in the same household, and for the policy covering the vehicle occupied at the time of the crash. Each policy carries its own selection form. Each form gets the identical review: prescribed format, complete execution, and the coverage type selected.

One timing point matters when pulling older paperwork. The text of La. R.S. 22:1295 states that a written rejection on the prescribed form remains valid for the life of the policy, so the operative form can predate the wreck by years. Request the form that was in effect on the crash date, not just the most recent renewal packet. Which policy pays first, and whether more than one can combine, depends on priority and stacking rules addressed elsewhere on this page. The confirmation task here is narrower: identify every potentially applicable policy and verify, form by form, what its selection document actually shows.

Does Louisiana Treat UIM as Gap Coverage or Excess Coverage?

Louisiana treats UIM as excess coverage. Under La. R.S. 22:1295, a vehicle is underinsured when the injured person’s proven damages exceed the at-fault driver’s liability limits. The statutory trigger compares damages against the available liability coverage. It does not compare one set of policy limits against another.

That damages-based trigger in La. R.S. 22:1295 is why the gap label misdescribes the Louisiana rule. A gap structure would pay only the spread between two sets of policy limits and would pay nothing when those limits matched. Under the trigger La. R.S. 22:1295 sets out, the UIM layer activates whenever damages exceed the available liability coverage, even when both policies carry identical limits on paper.

The Louisiana Supreme Court pairs that trigger with a credit. The UIM carrier does not owe the part of the damages that falls within the at-fault driver’s liability limits; it owes only the damages above those limits, up to the UIM limits the insured purchased (Niemann v. Travelers Insurance Co., 368 So. 2d 1003 (La. 1979)). The credit is the liability insurance that covered the at-fault driver at the time of the crash, not the amount the insured collected from it. In Keller v. Amedeo, 512 So. 2d 385 (La. 1987), the injured driver settled with one liability insurer for its $10,000 limit and signed a release that also cut off a second $10,000 policy that may have covered the at-fault driver, so she collected nothing under that second policy. The Court held that if that policy covered the at-fault driver at the time of the crash, the UIM carrier would be entitled to a credit for the amount of that insurance as well. Settling the liability claim for less than the limits therefore does not shrink the credit, and Niemann itself stated the rule in a case where the insured had settled with the liability insurer for $9,750, $250 less than its $10,000 limits. Both decisions applied an earlier version of the UM statute, whose definition of an underinsured vehicle is in substance the one La. R.S. 22:1295 states today. The liability policy pays first, and the UIM coverage sits above it as an excess layer rather than replacing it.

Sequencing follows from this excess structure. The liability layer is valued first because its limits set the credit the UIM carrier takes. The step-by-step calculation section below works through that math number by number.

How Does UM/UIM Stacking Work in Louisiana?

Stacking in Louisiana turns on one statutory provision: La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c). By its terms, that provision generally prohibits combining multiple UM coverages for the same accident, and it writes in a single exception for an insured hurt while occupying a vehicle not owned by the insured, a resident spouse or a resident relative. Everything else in a stacking analysis is reading: the statute itself, the policies, and the selection forms attached to them.

What Does La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) Generally Prohibit?

Stacking means adding the limits of two or more UM policies together for one accident. That practice is what the prohibition in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) addresses.

When the general rule controls, the practical question becomes which single policy applies. Identifying that policy shapes how a claim is valued and which carrier receives the demand. The answer starts with the statutory text itself, not with a carrier’s summary of it.

When Does the Occupied-Vehicle Exception Apply?

The exception sits in the same provision. As the text of La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) describes it, one additional UM policy can stack when the injured insured occupied such a vehicle, and the occupied vehicle’s UM coverage sits primary under that exception.

A passenger hurt in a friend’s car is the situation that statutory wording contemplates. Anyone weighing that scenario should match their facts against the provision’s language rather than assume every household policy joins the claim. The wording, not the household’s policy count, decides what fits.

How Do Waivers and Policy Priority Complicate Stacking?

Stacking disputes rarely turn on the statute alone; they are a document problem before they are a math problem. Confirming what stacks means reading every potentially applicable policy and the selection forms attached to each one. Those documents then get matched against the statutory text to determine whether the occupied-vehicle language in La. R.S. 22:1295(1)(c) fits the facts and which policy sits primary.

Which Louisiana Rules Most Affect UM/UIM Settlement Value?

Two Louisiana rules move UM/UIM settlement numbers before anyone debates medical bills. The first is the No Pay, No Play bar. The second is the civil jury trial threshold.

One can remove a large piece of a claim before negotiation starts. The other determines whether a judge or a jury would resolve the dispute at trial, and that answer is built into every offer a carrier makes.

No Pay, No Play Under La. R.S. 32:866

La. R.S. 32:866 provides that an uninsured driver cannot collect the first $100,000 of bodily injury damages or the first $100,000 of property damage from the at-fault driver’s insurer, and the bar applies regardless of fault.

An adjuster who confirms the claimant was uninsured subtracts the statutory amount before discussing anything else. Proof that the claimant carried valid coverage on the date of the wreck takes the bar off the table, which makes documenting coverage status early a core valuation task.

The $10,000 Civil Jury Trial Threshold

La. C.C.P. art. 1732 sets Louisiana’s civil jury trial threshold at $10,000. That figure shapes whether a UM/UIM dispute is tried to a judge or to a jury, and it shapes settlement posture as a direct result.

The carrier evaluates every claim against the likely outcome if negotiation fails. Whether a judge or a jury would decide that outcome is part of how the carrier sets its number. It is also part of how a claimant’s attorney measures whether the current offer matches what a factfinder would award. A demand that ignores who would actually try the case is a demand built on the wrong assumptions.

Coverage credits, comparative fault percentages, and stacking rules also shift UM/UIM value. This page takes up each of those in its own section.

How Do You Calculate a UM/UIM Settlement in Louisiana Step by Step?

A Louisiana UM/UIM settlement is calculated in three steps: value the total damages, apply the credit for the at-fault driver’s liability limits, then cap the result at the purchased UM limits. The damages come first because the UM statute’s test for an underinsured driver, described above, compares the insured’s damages with that driver’s liability coverage (La. R.S. 22:1295). The credit and the cap come from the Louisiana Supreme Court’s rule in the excess-coverage section above, not from the statute (Niemann, 368 So. 2d 1003). Each step changes the number the UM carrier owes. Get the order wrong and the demand letter starts from the wrong figure.

1. Value the Total Damages

   The calculation starts with the full value of the claim, not anyone’s policy limits. That figure is built from documentation of what the wreck cost the insured, supported by records the carrier can verify. The damages number is the input everything else gets subtracted from. An undervalued claim at this stage shrinks every step that follows.

2. Apply the Liability-Limits Credit

   The second step subtracts the at-fault driver’s liability limits, the credit described in the excess-coverage section above. When the liability insurer pays its full limits, the credit and the payment are the same number, and the Louisiana Supreme Court applied the credit that way in Bellard v. American Central Insurance Co., 2007-1335 (La. 4/18/08), 980 So. 2d 654, a claim under the uninsured motorist coverage now governed by La. R.S. 22:1295. The injured driver had settled with the at-fault driver and her liability insurer for the $50,000 policy limits, which left his employer’s UM carrier as the only defendant. The Court set his general damages at $250,000, credited the $50,000 settlement against that figure, and raised the general damages award to $200,000.

   Because the credit stays at the full limits even when the liability claim settles for less, the liability limits and the release language need to be documented carefully before any UM demand is valued.

3. Cap the Result at Your UM Limits

   After the credit, the purchased UM limits set the ceiling on this layer of the claim. The UM carrier owes the damages that remain after Step 2, but never more than the UM limits the insured purchased (Niemann, 368 So. 2d 1003).

   Putting the Three Steps Together

   The working formula reads: total damages, minus the credit for the at-fault driver’s liability limits, capped at the purchased UM limits. Run those numbers before any demand goes out, because the carrier will run them too. Comparative fault can adjust the damages figure before this math begins, and that rule is covered in its own section of this page.

How Does Comparative Fault Change a Louisiana UM/UIM Settlement?

Two statutes answer this question together. La. C.C. art. 2323 reduces a claimant’s damages in proportion to their assigned fault. For causes of action arising on or after January 1, 2026, the same article bars a claimant assigned 51% or more of the fault from collecting anything. La. R.S. 22:1295 measures UM/UIM coverage by what the insured is “legally entitled to recover” from the uninsured or underinsured driver. Under the combined text of those two provisions, the fault percentage assigned to you adjusts the UM/UIM figure before any other settlement mechanic applies.

Why Fault Percentages Reach the UM/UIM Claim

The text of La. R.S. 22:1295 measures UM/UIM coverage by what the insured is “legally entitled to recover” from the uninsured or underinsured driver. That statutory phrase is the bridge between the two provisions. The text of La. C.C. art. 2323 sets what a claimant can collect from the at-fault driver according to the claimant’s fault percentage. The coverage measure in La. R.S. 22:1295 then carries that same statutory reduction into the claim against your own UM/UIM carrier.

This statutory pairing explains why fault allocation gets contested inside a UM/UIM claim even though the carrier is your own insurer. Under the two statutes read together, every fault point the adjuster assigns to you shrinks the amount the coverage measures. Fault allocation is not a fixed fact in a UM/UIM claim; it is a negotiated variable that the documentary record can move.

How Fault Disputes Shape Settlement Posture

The text of La. C.C. art. 2323 converts each fault point into a proportional reduction. Under the coverage measure in La. R.S. 22:1295, evidence pinning fault on the uninsured or underinsured driver therefore carries direct settlement value. Police reports, witness statements, scene photographs, and vehicle damage patterns all bear on the percentage a carrier can credibly assign to you. A claimant who holds their assigned fault near zero protects the full damages figure before any other part of the claim is negotiated.

Can You Settle With the At-Fault Driver and Still Make a UM/UIM Claim in Louisiana?

Yes. The insured can settle with and release the at-fault driver and that driver’s liability insurer without the UM carrier’s consent, and the release does not by itself end the claim against the UM carrier. What the release says still matters, because careless wording can cost the insured other insurance and interest.

Why the UM Carrier’s Consent Is Not Required

A UM policy may exclude coverage when the insured settles with anyone legally liable without the carrier’s written consent. That kind of clause does not bind the insured. The Louisiana Supreme Court held it invalid in Niemann, even though the carrier argued, and the insured conceded, that his settlement and release had cut off the carrier’s chance to collect from the at-fault driver (Niemann, 368 So. 2d 1003). The Court reasoned that a liability insurer will not settle without a release of the driver it insures, so an insured who settles has a legitimate need to give one, and a consent clause would let the UM carrier block the coverage the statute requires. The Court repeated the rule for a reasonable settlement with the at-fault driver and that driver’s insurer in Bosch v. Cummings, 520 So. 2d 721 (La. 1988).

The carrier’s own rights against the at-fault driver are narrow. It has no claim of its own against that driver. Only when it pays its insured does it take over the insured’s claim against the driver and the driver’s insurer, a transfer the law calls subrogation, and then only up to the amount it paid. If the insured has already released the at-fault driver in a good-faith settlement, no claim is left for the carrier to take over, and the carrier has no recourse (Bosch, 520 So. 2d 721; Sharp v. Daigre, 555 So. 2d 1361 (La. 1990)).

How Release Language Affects the UM Claim

An accident victim who settles with the at-fault driver does not give up the claim against the UM carrier just because the release did not expressly reserve it (Carona v. State Farm Insurance Co., 458 So. 2d 1275 (La. 1984)). Carona applied an older Civil Code article that required that reservation, and the Court noted that the Legislature had already abolished the requirement in its 1984 revision of the obligations articles.

UM carriers still read releases closely, and a catch-all phrase is where they look. In Singleton, the insured released the at-fault driver, the driver’s liability insurer and “all other persons, firms or corporations liable,” and her UM carrier had her UM suit dismissed on that language. The appeals court reversed. It held that a party claiming a settlement ended the case must have been a party to that settlement, and the UM carrier was not (Singleton v. United Services Automobile Association, 18-CA-15 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/17/18)).

The same catch-all phrase can cost the insured other insurance. In Keller, described in the excess-coverage section above, a release of “all other persons” cut off a second policy that may have covered the at-fault driver, and the UM carrier would still take a credit for that policy (Keller, 512 So. 2d 385).

Interest is an item the release does have to reserve. The at-fault driver, the liability insurer and the UM carrier are all bound to pay the same damages, so an insured who settles with one of them must, in that settlement, either claim the legal interest that runs from the day suit was filed or expressly reserve the right to it. In Martin v. Champion Insurance Co., 656 So. 2d 991 (La. 1995), the insured settled with the liability insurer for its $10,000 limit, nothing showed that her release reserved interest, and she lost the interest on that $10,000 that she had sought from her UM carrier.

Attorneys who handle UM claims draft the release narrowly. It names the at-fault driver and the liability insurer, releases only them, and expressly reserves all claims under the insured’s own UM/UIM coverage and the interest on the amount paid. The insured in Sharp did the same, releasing the at-fault driver and his insurer for its $100,000 limits while reserving all rights against his UM carriers (Sharp, 555 So. 2d 1361).

A Sequence That Preserves Both Claims

The order of operations is short. First, confirm the at-fault driver’s liability limits and ask about any other policy that may cover that driver, because the UM carrier takes a credit for that insurance as well (Keller, 512 So. 2d 385). Second, settle with the liability insurer; a reasonable, good-faith settlement needs no consent from the UM carrier. Third, sign a release limited to the at-fault driver and the liability insurer, with an express reservation of the UM/UIM claim and of interest.

With the liability layer closed that way, attention turns to the UM claim itself.

What Proof Makes a Louisiana UM/UIM Insurer Pay or Tender?

The Louisiana Supreme Court answers this question in two parts. First, the insurer providing the uninsured motorist coverage that La. R.S. 22:1295 requires has satisfactory proof of loss when it receives enough facts to show four things: the other driver was uninsured or underinsured, that driver was at fault, the fault caused damages, and the extent of those damages. Second, once the insurer has that proof, it must pay its insured, without conditions, the amount of damages on which reasonable minds could not differ (Demma v. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, 2008-C-2810 (La. 6/26/09), quoting McDill v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 475 So. 2d 1085 (La. 1985)). Everything below describes the documents that supply each showing and how a complete demand package shapes negotiation.

The Four Elements of Satisfactory Proof of Loss

Each element corresponds to documents the insured controls or can obtain. The declarations page and the policy itself come first, because they show that UM coverage applies to the claimant for this collision. A UM demand package that then covers all four elements gives the adjuster nothing to call unproven.

1. Uninsured or underinsured status. An affidavit of no coverage, or the at-fault driver’s liability declarations showing limits below the damages, fills this gap.
2. Fault of the other driver. The crash report, witness statements, scene photographs, and any citation issued document who caused the wreck.
3. Damages caused by that fault. Treating-physician narratives tie the injuries to the crash.
4. Extent of damages. Medical records, itemized bills, diagnostic imaging, and wage documentation quantify the loss.

A demand letter that attaches documentation on all four points starts the carrier’s evaluation in a way a bare notice of claim does not. A gap in any single element gives the adjuster a defensible reason to delay.

What an Unconditional Tender Means in Practice

Unconditional means exactly what it sounds like. The payment arrives without a release, a dismissal, or any other concession attached, and the insured keeps it however the rest of the claim resolves. The amount reflects the portion of the claim the carrier’s own evaluation does not dispute.

The tender works as a floor, not a ceiling. The insured deposits the payment and keeps negotiating or litigating the disputed remainder. A carrier that contests the value of future treatment, for example, still tenders the portion of the claim it does not contest.

Using the Proof Standard in Settlement Strategy

The four elements give the insured a checklist for building leverage before any demand goes out. A complete package on day one shapes how the adjuster values the file. Every later excuse for delay traces back to a document the insured could have supplied earlier.

What happens when a carrier receives satisfactory proof of loss and still refuses to pay or tender is covered in the bad-faith discussion below.

How Do Louisiana Bad-Faith Rules Change UM/UIM Settlement Leverage?

Louisiana’s bad-faith penalty law gives a UM/UIM claimant a kind of negotiating leverage that a claim against the at-fault driver’s carrier does not carry. Under the revised La. R.S. 22:1892, which absorbed the duty of good faith and fair dealing formerly stated in La. R.S. 22:1973 after that statute’s repeal effective July 1, 2024, the UM/UIM insurer owes first-party duties of good faith and fair dealing to its own insured. That first-party relationship is what makes bad-faith leverage available against your own carrier and unavailable against a tortfeasor’s carrier.

The practical effect shows up at the negotiating table. A first-party carrier is not just weighing the value of the claim. It is also weighing its own statutory exposure for how it handles the claim.

What Does La. R.S. 22:1892 Put at Stake for the Carrier?

La. R.S. 22:1892 attaches a price to a failure to pay within 30 days of satisfactory proof of loss when that failure is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. The statute sets that price at a 50% penalty on the amount due plus attorney fees.

In a negotiation, that text turns delay into a cost the carrier carries itself. A carrier that sits on a documented claim is no longer just postponing payment. It is accumulating exposure of its own.

What Happened to La. R.S. 22:1973?

La. R.S. 22:1973, which formerly imposed a separate duty of good faith and fair dealing and authorized penalties of up to two times the damages sustained or $5,000, whichever was greater, was repealed effective July 1, 2024. The duty of good faith and fair dealing, the prohibited claim-handling practices, and the penalty framework now appear in the revised La. R.S. 22:1892. The old two-times-damages remedy is not current law; for claims governed by the revised statute, the penalty exposure is the framework La. R.S. 22:1892 sets out.

A claimant’s attorney confirms which framework governs the date of loss, because the former statute may still apply to pre-repeal conduct while the revised La. R.S. 22:1892 governs later claims. Either way, the statute prices the carrier’s conduct, telling the carrier that how it handles the claim matters, not just what the claim is worth.

How Does Penalty Exposure Shape Settlement Posture?

Documentation drives this leverage. A complete, organized, date-stamped demand package is what a claimant’s attorney points to when raising statutory penalty exposure with a first-party carrier. Delay then reads as a tactic with a price tag, not a free negotiating move.

This is why UM/UIM negotiations often move differently than liability negotiations. A demand documented and date-stamped to put La. R.S. 22:1892 in play converts the carrier’s delay into measurable statutory exposure.

What Deadlines and Notice Rules Apply to Louisiana UM/UIM Claims?

Three rules control the deadline picture in a Louisiana UM/UIM claim. One sets the period for suing your own carrier. One sets the period for the underlying tort claim. The third connects them through interruption. Each has its own citation and its own start date, and which defendants remain available at filing time depends on tracking all three together.

How Long Do You Have to Sue the UM/UIM Carrier?

An action against your own UM/UIM carrier prescribes two years from the date of the accident under La. R.S. 9:5629. The period runs from the wreck itself, not from the day the liability claim resolves.

That start date matters in practice. Liability negotiations and ongoing medical treatment consume months. A claimant who waits for the liability claim to wrap up before evaluating the UM layer can spend most of that window without noticing it.

What Deadline Applies to the Underlying Tort Claim?

The accident date controls. The underlying tort claim carries a two-year liberative prescription under La. C.C. art. 3493.1 for accidents occurring after July 1, 2024. For earlier accidents, a one-year period applies under La. C.C. art. 3492.

Older cases therefore run a shorter clock against the driver than against the carrier. Newer cases run both clocks at the same length, which removes one trap but not the need to calendar each defendant separately.

Can Suing the At-Fault Driver Preserve the UM Claim?

Yes. Under La. C.C. art. 1799 and La. C.C. art. 3503, timely suit against one solidary obligor interrupts prescription against the others, including the UM carrier. Suing the at-fault driver on time is the classic example.

Interruption is a backstop, not a plan. Filing against the carrier within its own period avoids any dispute over whether interruption applies to a particular defendant. How settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer affects the UM claim is a separate question, addressed in the section on settling with the at-fault driver.