Hill v. Geico

── Hill v. Geico ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: Private Civil Diversity Case: 25-30497 Document: 67-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30497 FILED May 18, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Linda Hill, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Geico General Insurance Company, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:22-CV-300 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Hill sued her own uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer after a wreck with another driver. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer because Hill failed to present any evidence as to the insured status of the other driver. We AFFIRM. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-30497 Document: 67-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 No. 25-30497 Hill alleges she was injured in a two-car wreck in Prairieville, Louisiana. The other driver, Wilmer Reyes Sarmiento, was driving a car owned by Wuendy Lopez. Hill alleges that Lopez had an insurance policy which listed Sarmiento as a permitted driver. She alleges that she recovered against that policy, but that the policy limits were not sufficient to cover her injuries. Accordingly, she sued her own uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer, Defendant-Appellee GEICO General Insurance Company. GEICO moved for summary judgment. After a hearing on the motion, the district court ruled for GEICO. It explained that under Louisiana law, a plaintiff seeking to recover against her own uninsured motorist carrier must prove that both the owner and the driver of the at-fault vehicle were either uninsured or underinsured.1 The court observed that although Hill offered evidence that Lopez (the owner) was underinsured, she failed to present any evidence that Sarmiento (the driver) was uninsured or underinsured, such that summary judgment was proper. Hill timely appealed. Our review is de novo.2 We agree with the district court that Hill’s evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for the jury. Hill does not dispute on appeal that Sarmiento’s uninsured or underinsured status is an essential _____________________ 1 See Espinoza v. Doe, 2016-0424 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/17/17), 213 So. 3d 399, 401, writ denied, 2017-0466 (La. 5/1/17), 221 So. 3d 71 (“To recover against his UM insurer, an insured must prove that the owner and operator of the vehicle involved in the accident did not have automobile liability insurance in effect on the date of the accident.”). 2 See Kariuki v. Tarango, 709 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 2013). 2  Case: 25-30497 Document: 67-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 No. 25-30497 eleme