text:
    HOT DEVELOPERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. WILLOW LAKE ESTATES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
    No. 4D06-2233.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 21, 2007.
    Abbey L. Kaplan and Jeffrey M. Ber-man of Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L., Miami, for appellant.

      Suzanne M. McLean of Webber, Hinden, McLean & Arbeiter, P.A., Pembroke Pines, for appellee.
   GROSS, J.

Hot Developers, Inc. appeals from a final summary judgment that determined that the seller in a commercial real estate transaction was entitled to keep non-refundable deposits after Hot Developers failed to close. We affirm. The deposit provisions were liquidated damages and forfeiture was not unconscionable at the time of the breach.

Summary judgment is proper “only when there are no genuine issues of material fact conclusively shown from the record and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the moving party, and if there is the slightest doubt or conflict in the evidence, then summary judgment is not available.” Shreffler v. Philippon, 873 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Reeves v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 821 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)) (citation omitted). The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126,130 (Fla.2000).

We state the facts in the light most favorable to Hot Developers. In May 2005, Hot Developers, as buyer, and Willow Lake Estates, Inc., as seller, entered into an agreement for purchase and sale of commercial real estate for $5,700,000. Both sides were represented by counsel. The agreement contained no provision making the sale conditional upon financing. The closing date was July 8, 2005; the agreement contained a “time is of the essence” provision.

Section 2.1 of the agreement required Hot Developers to deposit $100,000 into its attorney’s trust account upon the signing of the contract. There was a due diligence period during which Hot Developers had the option to cancel the agreement for any reason whatsoever and receive a return of its deposit. Section 2.2 of the agreement called for Hot Developers to make a second deposit of $200,000 at the conclusion of the due diligence period. Hot Developers paid both deposits. Afterwards, Hot Developers obtained an appraisal that erroneously undervalued the property at $3,000,000.

The agreement required that closing “take place no later than 45 days after the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the provisions of § 2.4.” Pursuant to section 2.4, Hot Developers extended the closing date to August 1, 2005. Under section 2.4, as consideration for the closing date extension, Hot Developers directly paid Willow Lake $250,000. Section 2.4 described this money as “an additional non-refundable deposit” which “shall not be held in escrow and shall instead be immediately released to Seller (and credited toward the total purchase price).” Containing a “time is of the essence” provision, section 2.4 provided that Hot Developers would be in default if it failed to close on or before August 1, 2005.

Hot Developers was unable to close on August 1 because of the error in the first appraisal. Although the agreement contained no provision allowing Hot Developers to extend closing beyond August 1, Hot Developers sought a second extension. Hot Developers and Willow Lake negotiated the terms of an addendum to the agreement. The addendum extended the closing date to ‘Wednesday, August 24, 2005, time being absolutely of the essence.” Hot Developers agreed to release the escrowed deposits of $100,000 and $200,000 to Willow Lake pursuant to Section 3.1 of the addendum, which provided:

Buyer directed its attorney to release, and pay by wire transfer to seller on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 1, 2005, to seller an additional deposit of $300,000, which deposit shall be nonrefundable, all other provisions of the Agreement for Purchase and Sale to the contrary notwithstanding.

Hot Developers was again unable to close on August 24 because it had not yet secured a second appraisal.

On August 25, 2005, Willow Lake served Hot Developers with a notice of default. Section 18 of the agreement provided:

If Buyer defaults in the performance of Buyer’s obligations under this Agreement for any reason other than Seller’s default, Seller at its sole and exclusive option, shall have the right to:
18.1 terminate the Agreement and/or
18.2 retain the Deposit as liquidated and agreed damages and terminate all remaining obligations of the parties under the Agreement.

Willow Lake notified Hot Developers that it was retaining the non-refundable deposits as liquidated damages pursuant to section 18 of the agreement.

Shortly thereafter, Willow Lake secured a contract to sell the property to another party for $5,800,000 — $100,000 more than the price under the agreement with Hot Developers. However, the second contract did not close. By the time the second contract was terminated, Hot Developers’s second appraisal was completed. Hot Developers contacted Willow Lake and expressed its desire to proceed under the agreement or execute a new one. Willow Lake declined and refused to return the $550,000 deposit (i.e. $100,000 initial deposit + $200,000 deposit after due diligence + $250,000 deposit for closing date extension).

In an amended complaint, Hot Developers sought a declaratory judgment pursuant to chapter 86, Florida Statutes. The pleading alleged that (1) the liquidated damages clause in the agreement was unenforceable as a penalty and (2) the liquidated damages clause was unconscionable because the $550,000 deposit lost was grossly disproportionate to any damages that might reasonably have resulted from Hot Developers’s default. Hot Developers requested that the court declare the liquidated damages clause to be unenforceable, and enter an order requiring the return of the deposit.

On May 8, 2006, the trial court granted Willow Lake’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment. In its order, the court accepted certain facts presented by Hot Developers at the summary judgment hearing — that an expert witness would testify that the property was worth, at a minimum, the same amount as the contract price when Hot Developers failed to close on the closing date.

At oral argument, Willow Lake contended that Hot Developers purchased closing date extensions, so that under Waksman Enterprises, Inc. v. Oregon Properties, Inc., 862 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) the deposits were not refundable under the terms of the agreement and the addendum. Waksman observed that it

is entirely reasonable for a seller to exact from the buyer a payment — which the buyer cannot recover except as a credit at closing — to compensate the seller for keeping the seller’s property off the market for a period of time that extends beyond the time for closing initially contemplated and agreed to by the parties.

Id. at 41. However, Waksman also acknowledged that “a deposit forfeiture provision may constitute an unenforceable penalty in certain circumstances,” citing to Hyman v. Cohen, 73 So.2d 393, 401 (Fla.1954), and Lefemine v. Baron, 573 So.2d 326, 329 (Fla.1991). Waksman, 862 So.2d at 42. Waksman recognized that the party challenging the deposit forfeiture in that case had raised only an “argument concerning the proper interpretation” of a contract, and not an argument that the forfeiture was “otherwise unenforceable” under the rule of Hyman v. Cohen. Id.

This case differs from Waksman, because Hot Developers attacks the enforceability of the deposit forfeiture provisions of the agreement and addendum. This court has held that a forfeiture provision in a contract, similar to one calling for a nonrefundable deposit in exchange for a closing extension, must be analyzed under the principles of Hyman v. Cohen. Thus, in Hawk’s Cay Investors, Ltd. v. Brandy Marine of the Keys, Inc., 524 So.2d 681, 683-84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), we applied a Hy-man v. Cohen liquidated damages analysis to evaluate a provision in a marina management agreement that allowed the owner to terminate the agreement for a termination fee of $80,000. Hawk’s Cay relied upon Dade National Development Corp. v. Southeast Investments of Palm Beach County, Inc., 471 So.2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), where this court analyzed provisions in real estate sales contracts that required the seller to pay the buyer $200,000 if the seller cancelled the contract within six months of the execution date.

We agree with Willow Lake that the agreement and addendum provided that the deposits were non-refundable after Hot Developers failed to close. Proper analysis does not stop with an interpretation of the agreement and addendum. The rule of Hyman v. Cohen is “to allow ... liquidated damage clause[s] [such as the non-refundable deposit provisions] to stand if the damages are not readily ascertainable at the time the contract is drawn,” and the amount of liquidated damages is not “grossly disproportionate” to what might be expected to result from the buyer’s breach, but “to permit equity to relieve against the forfeiture if it appears unconscionable in light of the circumstances existing at the time of breach.” Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So.2d 129,132 (Fla.1972); Hyman, 73 So.2d at 401.

Because the “land sale market in Florida fluctuates from year to year and season to season,” Florida recognizes that “it is generally impossible” to say at the time a contract is executed what the seller’s loss will be if the buyer fails to close. Hutchi-son, 259 So.2d at 132. Less than ten percent of the purchase price, the nonrefundable deposits in this case were not “so grossly disproportionate to any damages that might reasonably be expected to follow” from the buyer’s failure to close, such that the parties could have “intended only to induce full performance ... rather than to liquidate their damages.” Hyman, 73 So.2d at 401.

Arising from a real estate contract, the non-refundable deposit provisions in this case satisfied the rule of Hyman v. Cohen and are properly characterized as enforceable liquidated damages provisions, and not as penalties. Two commercial entities, •with no suggestion of an imbalance of bargaining power between them, should be free to fashion a transaction where the seller exacts from the buyer “payment— which the buyer cannot recover except as a credit at closing — to compensate the seller for keeping the seller’s property off the market for a period of time that extends beyond the time for closing initially contemplated” by the parties. Waksman, 862 So.2d at 41. A policy that encourages courts to freely invalidate such provisions would substantially undermine “the commercial value of contractual arrangements.” Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So.2d 884, 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (quoting 14 Samuel Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1632 (3d ed.1972)).

The second aspect of the Hyman v. Cohen rule requires the court to determine whether equity should intervene to relieve a party of a forfeiture that “appears unconscionable in light of the circumstances existing at the time of breach.” Hutchison, 259 So.2d at 132. The supreme court has identified two factors that support the finding that a forfeiture is unconscionable: (1) that the buyer’s “failure to fulfill the contract was due to any misfortune beyond his control” and (2) that the seller received a benefit, “the retention of which was shocking to the conscience of the court.” See Beatty v. Flannery, 49 So.2d 81, 82 (Fla.1950).

This case presents no factors supporting a finding of unconscionability at the time of the breach in August, 2005. Where, as here, the liquidated damages figure was a fair estimate of potential, actual damages when the contract was made; relatively little time passed between contract execution and breach; and no circumstances occurred wholly inconsistent with the parties’ expectations, it is not surprising that the liquidated damages figure agreed to at the outset would not be unconscionable at the time of the breach. This was not a case where Willow Lake had already sold the property to another at a minimal loss at a time when it sought to forfeit the $550,000. See Hutchison, 259 So.2d at 132. Although Hot Developers was unable to close because of a faulty appraisal that interfered with its financing, this did not make the forfeiture unconscionable. The commercial real estate sales contract was not contingent on financing; the agreement contained a due diligence period where the buyer had the right to terminate the contract and receive a refund of the deposit; the erroneous appraisal was not a circumstance beyond the buyer’s control; and when it realized the mistake in the appraisal, Hot Developers did not try to avoid the agreement, but sought extensions to perform.

Under the case law, a significant factor in the unconscionability equation “is the amount of money being retained vis a vis the total contract price.” Hooper v. Breneman, 417 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Here, the $550,000 deposits are only 9.65% of the total contract price. This figure is well within the range of liquidated damages approved by Florida courts. See Beatty, 49 So.2d at 81-82 (holding that forfeiture of 10% of purchase price for buyer’s breach of real estate sales contract was not unconscionable); Bruce Builders v. Goodwin, 317 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (approving liquidated damages that were 4.1% of the contract price); Dade Nat’l Dev. Corp., 471 So.2d at 116-17 (upholding forfeiture of cancellation fees totaling 11.82% under two contracts); Bloom v. Chandler, 530 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (upholding a liquidated damages clause wherein the sellers retained a $49,500 deposit as liquidated damages on a contract for $225,000 or 22% of the purchase price); Hooper, 417 So.2d at 818 (upholding liquidated damages provision calling for forfeiture of 13.3% of the purchase price); Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (approving forfeiture of 18.2% of contract price); Bradley v. Sanchez, 943 So.2d 218, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding that “forfeiture of 4.85% of the total sales price (or $510,000) as liquidated damages is not an unconscionable amount of damages”); compare McNorton v. Pan Am,. Bank of Orlando, 387 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding that “retention of 50% of the purchase price paid as a deposit by a vendee in default” was “sufficiently shocking” to state a cause of action); Bemdt v. Bieberstein, 465 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (disallowing as unconscionable liquidated damages of over 55% of the purchase price).

That the value of the property may have appreciated between May and August, 2005, does not render the forfeiture of the non-refundable deposits unconscionable. As the trial judge observed, focusing solely on an increase in market value of the property fails to take into consideration those intangible losses that a seller might suffer from taking the property off of the market. A liquidated damages provision permits the parties to agree at the outset of a contract on the amount of damages resulting from nonperformance so as to avoid extensive litigation if and when a breach occurs. The history of fluctuations in the Florida real estate market makes it “generally impossible” to predict changes in value between the date of a contract and the closing months in the future. Hutchison, 259 So.2d at 132. In Bruce Builders, we held that a seller was entitled to liquidated damages even though it had sold the property in question for a net profit of approximately $2,500. 317 So.2d at 870.

On the remaining issue, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s decision not to postpone the summary judgment hearing to allow further discovery.

Affirmed.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

      . The supreme court's characterization of the Florida real estate market in Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So.2d 129, 132 (Fla.1972), recalls J. Pierpont Morgan’s prediction about the stock market. "When asked by a brash young investor for a forecast about how the market would go, Morgan glared down his generously endowed nose, bristled his mustache, and replied: 'It will fluctuate, young man. It will fluctuate.’ ” Time Magazine, Fri. Aug. 19, 1966, located at http://www.time. com/time/magazine /article/0,9171, 836266,-00.html.

      . Because this case involves a short period of time between the execution of the contract and the breach, the evaluation of the depos-h/contract price ratio for unconscionability purposes is similar to the "grossly disproportionate” analysis undertaken earlier to determine whether there was a valid liquidated damages clause or a penalty.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Naser Yousef GHNEIM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 4D06-3631.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 21, 2007.
    Debra Kay Cohen, North Miami, for appellant.
    Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Naser Yousef Ghneim seeks review of an order that summarily denied his rule 3.850 motion through which he sought to withdraw his plea as involuntary. Ghneim’s claim centers on his allegation that he was not advised that the 1997 plea may subject him to deportation. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c)(8). Considering the Florida Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement in State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208 (Fla.2006), associated with the timeliness of the motion, and the threshold allegations necessary to support the claim, this case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. See also Gaston v. State, 950 So.2d 397, 2007 WL 416088 (Fla. Feb. 8, 2007).

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ„ concur.


text:
    Luegenaer THOMAS, Appellant, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee.
    No. 4D07-123.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 21, 2007.
    Luegenaer Thomas, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.
    Bradley R. Bischoff, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.
   PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus/habeas corpus, appellee Florida Parole Commission concedes that the trial court erred in ruling on the petition before waiting twenty days to permit appellant to file a reply to appellee’s response. See Bard v. Wolson, 687 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We agree and reverse for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

STONE, WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.


author: KIMBALL, J. VICTORY, J., WEIMER, J., WEIMER, J.,

text:
    Tammy Kay DUNCAN v. U.S.A.A. INSURANCE COMPANY, James S. Cameron and Maloni R. Sartin-White, Western Heritage Insurance Company.
    No. 2006-CC-363.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 29, 2006.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 2007.
    Opinion Dissenting from Denial of Rehearing Feb. 16, 2007.

      Ungarino & Edkert, Matthew J. Ungari-no, David I. Bordelon, Metairie, for Applicant.
    Frischhertz & Associates, Lloyd N. Frischhertz, Jr., William J. Levenson, Marc L. Frischhertz, New Orleans, McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel, Michael R. Sistrunk, Metairie, for Respondent.
    Stevan C. Dittman, New Orleans, Attorney for Louisiana Trail Lawyers Association Amicus Curiae.
   KIMBALL, J.

hThe issue presented in this case is whether UM coverage was validly waived when the line for policy number was left blank on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. For the reasons that follow, we find the UM statute requires that the blank for the policy number contained on the insurance commissioner’s form be filled in to effectuate a valid waiver of UM coverage and, therefore, UM coverage was not effectively waived in this instance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeal, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 16, 2003, Tammy Kay Duncan (“plaintiff’) was a guest passenger in a vehicle operated by Shea Rembert that was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by defendant Maloni Sartin-White, who had herself been rear-ended by a vehicle operated by defendant James Cameron. Plaintiff filed an action in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court against Maloni Sar-tin-White, who was uninsured, James Cameron, and James Cameron’s insurer, U.S.A.A. Insurance Company. Plaintiff later supplemented her petition to add Western Heritage Insurance Company (“Western | ¡.Heritage”) as a defendant, alleging that Western Heritage was the uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) carrier for the vehicle operated by Shea Rembert.

Western Heritage thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment and prayed that it be dismissed from the action. Western Heritage asserted it did not provide UM coverage because the owner of the insured vehicle, Robert Rembert, had validly rejected UM coverage on August 16, 2002. In response, plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment alleging the UM rejection was invalid and, therefore, Western Heritage’s UM coverage should be equal to the $100,000 liability limits of the policy.

The district court granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment and denied Western Heritage’s motion for summary judgment. In its reasons for judgment, the district court explained the waiver of the UM coverage was ineffective because the form was not properly completed according to the 1997 amendment to La. R.S. 22:1406 (redesignated as La. R.S. 22:680 by 2003 La. Acts No. 456). Because the Western Heritage UM form failed to follow the appropriate language of the statute, the district court held there was UM coverage of $100,000 equal to the liability limits of the policy.

Western Heritage applied for supervisory writs, which the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, granted, stating:

This court has previously held that the absence of a policy number on a UM rejection form does not invalidate the rejection, provided that the form complies in all other respects with La. R.S. 22:680. Knight v. Owens, 03-1064 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/23/04), 869 So.2d 188.
After a review of the UM waiver at issue, we find that the waiver is valid and therefore the trial court should have granted relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff then filed a writ of certiorari with this court, which was granted with an order remanding the matter to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and | ^opinion. On remand, a different panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, in a split decision, ruled in favor of plaintiff. The court reasoned that pursuant to the 1997 amendment, a rejection must now be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance, and that the commissioner of insurance promulgated a UM form with a line for the policy number in the lower right-hand corner of the form. Spaces were provided for the policy number on the form in this case, but they were left blank. Citing Cohn v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 03-2820, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 895 So.2d 600, 602, and Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126, 1131 (La.1987), the court of appeal stated, “The expression of a desire not to have UM coverage, however clear, does not necessarily constitute a valid rejection if the expression does not meet the formal requirements of law.” The court of appeal denied Western Heritage’s writ, noting the incomplete form, the liberal construction given the UM statute and the strict construction accorded any statutory exceptions to coverage. The dissenting judge stated the form was properly completed as required by La. R.S. 22:680 even without the policy number. Western Heritage then applied for a writ of certiorari to this court, which was granted to address the issue of whether UM coverage was effectively waived when the insured left the line for policy number blank on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance.

DISCUSSION

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact. The summary judgment procedure is favored and designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the district court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. | 4Schroeder v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 591 So.2d 342, 345 (La.1991). A motion for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966. In ruling on the present cross motions for summary judgment, we will determine whether either party has established there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In Louisiana, UM coverage is provided for by statute and embodies a strong public policy. Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130; A.I.U. Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 404 So.2d 948, 949 (La.1981). The object of UM insurance is to provide full recovery for automobile accident victims who suffer damages caused by a tortfeasor who is not covered by adequate liability insurance. Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 609 So.2d 195, 197 (La.1992); Henson v. Safeco Ins. Co., 585 So.2d 534, 537 (La.1991); Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So.2d 575, 578 (La.1982).

UM coverage is determined not only by contractual provisions, but also by applicable statutes. Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130. Thus, under the UM statute, the requirement of UM coverage is an implied amendment to any automobile liability policy, even when not expressly addressed, as UM coverage will be read into the policy unless validly rejected. Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), 691 So.2d 1213, 1214; Henson, 585 So.2d at 537.

This court has held the statute is to be liberally construed. Daigle, 96-1662 at p. 3, 691 So.2d at 1214; Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130. The liberal construction given the UM statute requires the statutory exceptions to coverage be interpreted strictly. Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130. Any exclusion from coverage in an insurance policy must |Rbe clear and unmistakable. Daigle, 96-1662 at p. 3, 691 So.2d at 1214; Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130. In accordance with this strict construction requirement, the insurer bears the burden of proving any insured named in the policy rejected in writing the coverage equal to bodily injury coverage or selected lower limits. Tugwell, 609 So.2d at 197.

As stated by this court in Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130:

The law imposes UM coverage in this state notwithstanding the language of the policy, the intentions of the parties, or the presence or absence of a premium charge or payment. Accordingly, to effect a valid rejection of the UM coverage under La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(l)(a), the insured or his authorized representative must expressly set forth in a single document that UM coverage is rejected in the State of Louisiana as of a specific date in a particular policy issued or to be issued by the insurer. A writing, regardless of the intention of the insured, of a less precise nature is insufficient to effect a valid rejection. (Citations omitted.)

The right to reject UM coverage and the method of rejection have been addressed several times by the Louisiana Legislature. Henson, 585 So.2d at 537; See also Historical and Statutory Notes to La. R.S. 22:1406. The original UM statute, adopted by 1962 La. Acts No. 187, required UM coverage in every automobile liability insurance policy issued in Louisiana, in an amount not less than the limits mandated by law for bodily injury damages. Henson, 585 So.2d at 537. The initial statute also gave the named insured the right to reject UM coverage. Id.

Although early versions of the UM statute did not explicitly require a rejection in writing, the courts interpreted the statute, by looking to general insurance laws, as requiring a written rejection. Henson, 585 So.2d at 537; See A.I.U Ins. Co., 404 So.2d at 949. Thereafter, 1977 La. Acts No. 438 specifically required that the rejection of UM coverage be in writing.

In 1987 La. Acts No. 436, La. R.S. 22:1406 was amended to require that any rejection or selection of lower limits shall be made only “on a form designed by each |fiinsurer.” In Tugwell, 609 So.2d at 197, this court held that the form used by the insurance company must give the applicant the opportunity to make a “meaningful selection” from his options provided by the statute: (1) UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits in the policy; (2) UM coverage lower than bodily injury limits in the policy; or (3) no UM coverage.

In Daigle, 96-1662 at pp. 3-4, 691 So.2d at 1214-15, this court explained the legislature’s directive that the form be “designed by each insurer” as follows:

Implicit in the legislature’s direction to insurers to design a form, was the responsibility to design a form that would fairly effectuate the intent of the law. The legislature did not mandate that the form be designed in any particular way, nor did it indicate that any particular language was sacrosanct. The legislature had to have anticipated that various insurers might go about the design of the necessary form in different ways. Moreover, as in any case where the same type of document is drafted separately by multiple authors, it is to be expected that some forms will be better than others. Had the legislature believed that only one format was acceptable or that only certain words or phrases could be used, it would have included the required format in the statute. It did not do so. Thus, the question before us is not whether the form used by Louisiana Indemnity was the best form that anyone could possibly devise. Rather, the question before us is whether the form designed and used by Louisiana Indemnity was adequate for the purpose intended by the legislature.

As described by this court, various insurers designed different types of forms, which the courts often analyzed to determine whether the statutory and jurisprudential requirements were met. See, e.g., Daigle, 96-1662 at pp. 4-5, 691 So.2d at 1215; Tugwell, 609 So.2d at 197.

In 1997, the legislature recognized the problems inherent in allowing the insurers to design their own UM forms and amended La. R.S. 22:1406 to state that “such rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-only coverage shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance.” The | legislature again amended La. R.S. 22:1406 in 1999 to state that an initial rejection or selection remained valid for the life of the policy. 1999 La. Acts No. 732. Thereafter, in 2003 La. Acts No. 456, the legislature amended the statute to delete the provisions about forms executed prior to the effective date of the Act and re-designated the UM provisions as La. R.S. 22:680.

| «The issue before us today is whether the UM statute requires that the blank for the policy number contained on the insurance commissioner’s form be filled in to effectuate a valid waiver of UM coverage. Several courts of appeal have addressed this issue with varying results. In Cohn, 03-2820 at p. 5, 895 So.2d at 602, the First Circuit, in declaring the waiver of UM coverage ineffective, stated that by not including a complete policy number, checking off the name of the insurance company, or indicating that the officer of the company was signing in a representative capacity, the UM waiver was not ‘clear and unmistakable.’ Similarly, the Third Circuit, in Spera v. Lyndon Prop. Ins. Co., 00-1373, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/01), 788 So.2d 56, 59-60, interpreted the phrase “properly completed” to mean that every relevant blank on the form must be addressed, and therefore, found an attempted waiver of UM coverage invalid that left the date, the name of the insurance company, and policy number blank. The Second Circuit, however, in Jones v. Jones, 36,040, [9p. 5 (La.App. 2 Cir.5/8/02), 817 So.2d 454, 456, determined that the failure to include the policy number did not render the policy invalid as the insured knowingly rejected coverage. Likewise, in Barney v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 03-0435, p. 4 (La. 4 Cir. 9/24/03), 857 So.2d 1122, 1124, the Fourth Circuit held that the insured validly rejected UM coverage despite the lack of a policy number on the prescribed form. The Fifth Circuit, in Dupuy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 05-497, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/05), 920 So.2d 244, 247, upheld a waiver of UM coverage made on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance, although the date and policy number were absent. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit, in the instant case, ultimately determined that the lack of a policy number on the form precluded an effective waiver of UM coverage. Thus, we turn to the UM statute to analyze whether the blank for the policy number must be completed to effectuate a valid waiver of UM coverage.

As we begin our interpretation of the UM statute, we are mindful that when a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. La. C.C. art. 9. When the wording of a section is clear and free of ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. La. R.S. 1:4. The words of a law must be given their generally prevailing meaning, and words of art and technical terms must be given their technical meaning when the law involves a technical matter. La. C.C. art. 11; La. R.S. 1:3.

Moreover, the legislature is presumed to have enacted an article or statute in light of the preceding law involving the same subject matter and court decisions construing those articles or statutes, and where the new article or statute is worded differently from the preceding law the legislature is presumed to have intended to Imchange the law. La. R.S. 24:177(C).

The statutory language most pertinent to our analysis is the 1997 amendment, which states, in part:

[S]ueh rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-only coverage shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. The prescribed form shall be provided by the insurer and signed by the named insured or his legal representative. The form signed by the named insured or his legal representative which initially rejects such coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall be conclusively presumed to become a part of the policy or contract when issued and delivered, irrespective of whether physically attached thereto. A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage.

1997 La. Acts No. 1476.

The second and third sentences of the subsection, beginning “[t]he prescribed form” and concluding “physically attached thereto,” remain virtually unchanged by the 1997 amendments, with the exceptions that the word “prescribed” was added to modify “form” and the newly-added option of selecting “economic-only” coverage is referenced.

The first sentence also references “economic-only” coverage, but more importantly dictates that the rejection or selection “shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance,” not by the insurer. The legislature uses the mandatory “shall” and the restrictive “only” to emphasize that the use of any other forms or methods of rejecting UM coverage are invalid.

In the fourth sentence of the subsection, the legislature adds an entirely new provision, which states, “A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage.” The meaning of this new language, particularly the phrase “properly completed and signed form,” is disputed by the parties.

| ^Plaintiff contends that the phrase “properly completed” requires that the insured complete the form to the specifications set forth by the commissioner of insurance. Every blank on the form, therefore, must be filled. Plaintiff relies in part on the bulletin promulgated by the commissioner of insurance, LIRC 98-01, which states, “For identification purposes, the company name must be placed at the lower left-hand corner and the policy number at the lower right-hand corner of the Form.” Moreover, plaintiff asserts that it would be absurd to “conclusively presume” that the UM form becomes a part of the policy when the policy is not referenced and the form is not physically attached thereto. Plaintiff questions how the parties determine which policy the .UM waiver is “conclusively presumed” to become a part of. Accordingly, plaintiff suggests that if an insured has two policies and one waiver of UM coverage, then the rejection could be “conclusively presumed” to become a part of both policies.

Western Heritage contends that the only requirements for a valid rejection of UM coverage are those explicitly imposed by the statute. Thus, the form is properly completed if parties comply with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the statute requires only: (1) that the rejection or selection be made on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance; (2) that the form be provided by the insurer; and (3) that the form be signed by the named insured or his legal representative. Western Heritage argues that it has complied with all of these requirements and that the absence of a policy number should not be fatal to the waiver of UM coverage.

Before we determine whether the statute requires that all aspects of the form be complied with, let us now consider what the prescribed form entails. Essentially, the prescribed form involves six tasks: (1) initialing the selection or rejection of coverage chosen; (2) if limits lower than the policy limits are chosen (available in |12options 2 and 4), then filling in the amount of coverage selected for each person and each accident; (3) printing the name of the named insured or legal representative; (4) signing the name of the named insured or legal representative; (5) filling in the policy number; and (6) filling in the date.

The argument that the statute only requires those components explicitly mentioned in the statute implies some of the blanks on the form are optional, precatory, or at least not necessary for a valid UM waiver. For instance, the statute does riot state that the rejection or selection must be initialed. Under this argument, the rejection or selection of coverage would need not be initialed and a checkmark would be sufficient. But see Dyess v. American Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co., 03-1971, pp. 7-9 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/25/04), 886 So.2d 448, 453. Likewise, the statute refers to a “rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-only coverage” but does not address the insured filling in the exact amount of coverage desired. Arguably, the insured could select the option of lower limits under the mandate of the statute without filling in the blanks stating the exact limits for each person and each accident. Moreover, the statute does not require that the named insured or legal representative print his or her name, date the document, or include the policy number. If the only mandatory elements of the form are those outlined by the statute, then UM coverage would effectively be waived as long as one of the coverage options was checked and the form was signed.

If the statute requires only these bare essentials, then it seems unnecessary for it to direct the commissioner of insurance to prescribe a form. The legislature could have simply prescribed the form itself within the statute. See, e.g., La. R.S. 40:1299.58.3. In directing the commissioner of insurance to prescribe a form, the legislature gave the commissioner the authority to determine what the form would 113require.

The commissioner of insurance, in drafting the form, requires six tasks, all of which we find to be pertinent in rejecting UM coverage. The insured initials the selection or rejection chosen to indicate that the decision was made by the insured. If lower limits are selected, then the lower limits are entered on the form to denote the exact limits. The insured or the legal representative signs the form evidencing the intent to waive UM coverage and includes his or her printed name to identify the signature. Moreover, the insured dates the form to determine the effective date of the UM waiver. Likewise, the form includes the policy number to demonstrate which policy it refers to. Thus, the policy number is relevant to the determination of whether the insured waived UM coverage for the particular policy at issue.

Our discussion does not end here, however, as the statute goes on to state, “A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage.” This language, added in 1997, reflects a significant change in the law. The statute dictates that a “properly completed and signed form,” is now presumed to constitute a knowing waiver of UM coverage. This presumption exists because the prescribed form, if properly completed, clearly evidences the insured’s intent to waive UM coverage. The legislature, therefore, shifts the analysis away from the muddied question of whether the insured made an informed decision to knowingly waive coverage. Instead, the legislature states if the insurer uses the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance and makes certain that it is properly completed and signed, then the insurer receives a presumption that the insured’s waiver of coverage was knowing.

Significantly, this provision of the bill was amended various times while in 114committee and on the floor. The original and engrossed versions of HB 2513 (La.1997) state, “The completion of this form shall be conclusive proof that the person completing the form made an informed and knowledgeable decision in the selection of the uninsured motorist coverage.” (Emphasis added.) The provision is entirely absent from the reengrossed version. A Senate floor amendment suggests the following: “A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly and intelligently waived or selected the uninsured motorist coverage selected, if any.” Thus, these various versions, which vacillate between whether the presumption is conclusive or rebuttable, nevertheless, consistently emphasize that the presumption applies to the issue of whether or not the waiver was “knowing.”

It has been suggested that even if the form is not properly completed, the result is merely that the presumption does not apply and therefore the insurer must prove the insured knowingly waived coverage. We disagree.

This argument conflates the issues of form and intent. We find that, “The expression of a desire not to have UM coverage, however clear, does not necessarily constitute a valid rejection if the expression of rejection does not meet the formal requirements of law,” as stated by the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Cohn, 03-2820 at p. 5, 895 So.2d at 602, citing Roger, 513 So.2d at 1131. As stated above, the legislature gave the commissioner of insurance the authority to create a form and stated that “such rejection, selection of lower limits,, or selection of economic-only coverage shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance.” Pursuant to that mandate, compliance with the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance is necessary for the UM waiver to be valid. The insurer cannot rely on the insured’s intent to waive UM coverage to cure a defect in the form of the waiver. 11RBy failing to include the policy number in the blank provided on the form, the insurer failed to effectuate a valid rejection of UM coverage.

Moreover, we distinguish this failure to comply with the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance from other types of clerical errors in insurance contracts. In Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 06-0034, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1235, 1241 this court stated that a clerical error on the declarations page of a policy can be reformed to reflect the mutual intent of the parties. In that case, however, we addressed whether one umbrella policy was in excess of another umbrella policy, and we specifically considered that the outcome did not affect the amount of coverage afforded the insured. Id. at 1239.

In contrast, in Washington v. Savoie, 92-2957, pp. 6-7 (La.4/11/94), 634 So.2d 1176, 1180, this court differentiated UM coverage from other aspects of insurance law in the context of reformation, stating:

While it appears clear that the parties in this case were in good faith when they attempted to correct a mutual mistake, a court’s allowing the parties to change the effective date of the waiver by agreement, after the occurrence of plaintiffs’ accidents and after the institution of lawsuits, would encourage bad faith “cooperation” between an insurer who seeks to avoid payment of claims and a named insured whose premiums are fixed on the basis of its loss experience. Although reformation of an insurance policy provision is valid between the parties when either party can prove a mistake in the policy which does not reflect their mutual intent, public policy precludes reformation of the effective date of a UM coverage rejection when the change adversely affects the rights of persons insured under the policy to recover damages under the UM coverage provisions before the change.

Similarly, the same concern of bad faith cooperation expressed in Savoie applies to the instant case because a third party guest passenger, not the insured, is attempting to recover under the UM coverage. Thus, reformation of a UM waiver is precluded when the change adversely affects the rights of persons who, prior to the reformation, would be able to recover damages under the UM coverage provisions.

| , (¡Therefore, we find the failure to fill in the policy number on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance invalidates the UM waiver, and consequently, the UM coverage is equal to the liability limits of the policy.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we hold the UM statute requires that the blank for the policy number be filled in on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance to effectuate a valid waiver of UM coverage. Therefore, UM coverage was not effectively waived in this instance, thereby making UM coverage available equal to the liability limits of the policy. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeal granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

VICTORY, J.,

dissenting.

hi agree with much of Justice Weimer’s dissent, but would render summary judgment in favor of Western Heritage. There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the form at issue was “properly completed and signed” under La. R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii) and plaintiff presented no evidence to rebut the presumption that the owner of the vehicle, Robert Rembert, knowingly rejected UM coverage. Further, even without the benefit of the presumption, plaintiff failed to present any evidence that Rembert did not reject UM coverage.

For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

hi respectfully dissent.

I would not affirm the grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this matter, believing there remain genuine issues of material fact and a judgment should not be rendered as a matter of law. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 966.

The record before this court reflects the insured initialed and signed a UM Coverage Form waiving UM Bodily Injury Coverage on August 16, 2002. There is no evidence to suggest that the insured disputes this fact or disputes that it was his intent to waive UM coverage. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest the insured had multiple policies to which the waiver would apply or that he was confused in any way by the contents of the form.

There has been limited discovery in this matter. The parties filed reciprocal motions for summary judgment. There is no question a rejection form was signed waiving uninsured motorist coverage. The only issue to be decided is the consequence for failing to include the policy number in the blank provided on the form.

|2UM rejection “shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance.” LSA-R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii). The statute provides, in part, that “[a] properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage.” Id.

Conceding for the sake of argument that the form prescribed by the insurance commissioner which does not have the policy number indicated is not “properly completed,” the statute itself prescribes the consequence. Based on the words of the statute, the “rebuttable presumption” that the insured knowingly rejected coverage does not apply. Based on the statutory language, if a properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption, a fortiori, a form which is not properly completed does not create the rebuttable presumption. As such, the issue must be tried to determine whether the insured rejected the coverage. The consequence or penalty for failure to properly complete the form is contained within the statutory language and should not be jurispruden-tially created and imposed. According to the statute, even if the form is “properly completed,” the presumption of validity can, nevertheless, be rebutted by the insured.

Clearly, the insured shares responsibility for completing the form because the insured must sign the form. It seems unjust to impose the entire penalty for the form being incomplete on the insurer which received no premium for the UM coverage. As stated, the statute does not dictate this result. It is noteworthy that the statute does not specifically require the policy number. The statutory requirements are that the form be “signed by the named insured or his legal representative” and that it “rejects coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage.” LSA-R.S. 22:680.

| sIt is also noteworthy that the bulletin promulgated by the insurance commissioner, LIRC 98-01, states “For indemnification purposes, the company name must be placed at the lower left-hand corner and the policy number at the lower right-hand corner of the Form.” The bulletin does not state “for the rejection to be valid the policy number must be indicated.”

If the insured has but one policy, the policy number is not necessary for identification purposes. In such a case, the policy number becomes irrelevant and unnecessary. Furthermore, as indicated in Bonnette v. Robles, 32, 191, p. 3 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/18/99), 740 So.2d 261, 263, there is no legal requirement that the form make reference to the policy because the form becomes part of the policy by operation of law. LSA-R.S. 22:680(l)(a)(ii).

In the majority opinion, form is being substantially elevated over substance where one is provided coverage that was apparently specifically rejected and neither bought nor paid for simply because a potentially unnecessary number is not listed on the rejection form.

I believe Judge Chehardy was correct in her dissent:

[T]he statute provides that the “properly completed” and signed form creates a “rebuttable presumption” of a valid waiver. Thus, even where the form was “properly completed,” the insured could submit evidence to rebut the presumption of validity. However, the statute does not support the reverse premise as espoused by the majority’s disposition, i.e., a form that is not properly complete is presumed invalid.

Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Insurance Company, 05-C-222 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/11/2006).

I would not hold, as a matter of law, that UM coverage is mandated merely because the policy number was left blank on the rejection form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. That consequence is not statutorily ordained. Rather, I would apply the consequence established by the statute: if the form is not “properly | completed” the insurer does not benefit from the “rebuttable presumption” that the insured rejected UM coverage.

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Rehearing denied.

WEIMER, J.,

would grant the rehearing application.

liThe legislature assigned the task of confecting a form for rejecting UM coverage to the Commissioner of Insurance. LSA-R.S. 22:680. To assist in the implementation of this legislative directive, the Commissioner has also, from time to time, issued bulletins, including LIRC 98-01 which provides instruction on the UM waiver form. See Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Insurance Company, 06-0363 (La.il/2S/2006), 950 So.2d 544 (Weimer, J„ dissenting at p. 555 (LIRC 98-01 provides the policy number was for identification purposes, not to ensure validity of the UM rejection.)).

The attorneys who argued this case failed to direct the court’s attention to a subsequently issued bulletin, LIRC 98-03. Although we did not address this bulletin, the clear language of LIRC 98-03 further corroborates my dissent — placing the policy number on the waiver form is merely for identification purposes, as opposed to a requirement for validity of the waiver form.

LIRC 98-03 was issued to “provide assistance to insurers.” Significantly, the bulletin states:

| {.Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury Coverage Form — Additional Instructions

The Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury Coverage Form (hereinafter “UM Form”) is promulgated as required by law and is to be used with all motor vehicle liability insurance policies delivered or issued for delivery in Louisiana. The following instructions are in addition to those provided in LIRC Bulletin 98-01.
* The policy number should be shown at the lower right-hand corner of the UM Form. In the case where a policy number is not available, the space for the policy number may be left blank or a binder number may be inserted.

It is obvious changes were made when LIRC 98-03 is compared to LIRC 98-01. The instruction for inserting the policy number was changed from “must be placed” to “should be shown” in the lower right-hand corner. Additionally, insurers were advised that “the space for the policy number may be left blank” when the policy number is not available.

As indicated, the legislature delegated to the Commissioner of Insurance the responsibility to promulgate the UM waiver form. The bulletins provide instructions to insurers for proper completion of the UM form. We should consider these instructions issued by the Commissioner of Insurance regarding the form prepared by the Commissioner of Insurance. Insurers are entitled to rely on these instructions of the Commissioner in this matter. The instructions in the bulletin do not require inclusion of the policy number to ensure validity of the UM waiver form.

I would grant the rehearing.

      . 1997 La. Acts No. 1476 amended La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(l)(a)(ii) to state:
      After September 1, 1987, such rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-only coverage shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. The prescribed form shall be provided by the insurer and signed by the named insured or his legal representative. The form signed by the named insured or his legal representative which initially rejects such coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall be conclusively presumed to become a part of the policy or contract when issued and delivered, irrespective of whether physically attached thereto. A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage. Any form executed prior to the effective date of this Act shall be valid only until the renewal date; thereafter, the rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-only coverage shall be on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance as provided in this subsection.

      . 1999 La. Acts No. 732 states in part:
      The form signed by the insured or his legal representative which initially rejects coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall remain valid for the life of the policy and shall not require the completion of a new selection form when a renewal, reinstatement, substitute, or amended policy is issued to the same named insured by the same insurer or any of its affiliates. An insured may change the original uninsured motorist selection or rejection on a policy at any time during the life of the policy by submitting a new uninsured motorist selection form to the insurer on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. Any changes to an existing policy, regardless of whether these changes create new coverage, except changes in the limits of liability, do not create a new policy and do not require the completion of new uninsured motorist selection forms. For the purpose of this Section, a new policy shall mean an original contract of insurance which an insured enters into through the completion of an application on the form required by the insurer.

      . La. R.S. 22:680 currently reads:
      Such rejection, selection of lower limits, or selection of economic-only coverage shall be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. The prescribed form shall be provided by the insurer and signed by the named insured or his legal representative. The form signed by the named insured or his legal representative which initially rejects such coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall be conclusively presumed to become a part of the policy or contract when issued and delivered, irrespective of whether physically attached thereto. A properly completed and signed form creates a rebuttable presumption that the insured knowingly rejected coverage, selected a lower limit, or selected economic-only coverage. The form signed by the insured or his legal representative which initially rejects coverage, selects lower limits, or selects economic-only coverage shall remain valid for the life of the policy and shall not require the completion of a new selection form when a renewal, reinstatement, substitute, or amended policy is issued to the same named insured by the same insurer or any of its affiliates. An insured may change the original uninsured motorist selection or rejection on a policy at any time during the life of the policy by submitting a new uninsured motorist selection form to the insurer on the form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance. Any changes to an existing policy, regardless of whether these changes create new coverage, except changes in the limits of liability, do not create a new policy and do not require the completion of new uninsured motorist selection forms. For the purpose of this Section, a new policy shall mean an original contract of insurance which an insured enters into through the completion of an application on the form required by the insurer.

      . Other cases which refused to find a waiver of UM coverage invalid include: Dupuy v. Allstate Insurance Company, 05-497, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/05), 920 So.2d 244, 246;
        Bamey v. Progressive Security Insurance Company, 03-0435 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/24/03), 857 So.2d 1122, writ denied, 03-2931 (La. 1/9/04), 862 So.2d 990; Dixon v. Gene Moody Trucking, Inc., 36, 420, p. 9 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/23/02), 830 So.2d 392, 396-397; and Jones v. Jones, 36, 040, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/02), 817 So.2d 454, 456, writ denied, 02-1612 (La.9/30/02), 825 So.2d 1197.

      . A subsequent Bulletin has been issued by the Commissioner of Insurance. See LIRC 01-05 and a Clarification Notice dated December 1, 2006. I note that the UM waiver was executed August 16, 2002, and the accident occurred May 16, 2003.