PER CURIAM.

Relator, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), filed this writ application seeking supervisory review of the district court's judgment denying its motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we grant the writ and reverse the district court's judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff, David R. Bordelon, Jr., filed suit seeking recovery for damages sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on May 12, 2006.1 At the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed by and operating a vehicle provided by his employer, River City Air Conditioning, Inc. ("River City"). Plaintiff alleges that defendant, State Farm, has a policy of uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") coverage applicable to the vehicle that he was operating. State Farm admits that it issued a policy of automobile liability insurance for the vehicle to River City, which was in effect from May 1, 2006, to May 1, 2007. The policy was issued on May 3, 2006, and listed a policy premium due for UM/UIM coverage. However, on May 8, 2006, Brigham Ragusa, owner/manager of River City, declined UM/UIM coverage, and a purportedly valid UM/UIM rejection form was executed and so reflects. An amended policy was then issued on May 15, 2006, reflecting no UM/UIM coverage. Also attached to the policy of insurance is a form entitled, 6080Q Vehicle Schedule, dated May 15, 2006, which shows that there is no UM/UIM coverage on any vehicle on this policy.

Brigham Ragusa attests in his affidavit that he did not contract with State Farm to provide UM/UIM insurance coverage on the River City vehicles, and he did not pay for this additional coverage. Moreover, Deidra Golphin, a State Farm representative, attested by affidavit that there was no UM/UIM insurance coverage applicable to the insurance policy at issue.

State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that River City did not have UM/UIM insurance coverage on May 12, 2006, the date of the accident. State Farm argues that the May 8, 2006 UM/UIM rejection form met all six requirements as set forth in the Louisiana Supreme Court opinion in Harper v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 2008-2874 (La.2/13/09), 2 So.3d 418, citing Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 2006-0363 (La.11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544. Moreover, the policy was updated on May 15, 2006, reflecting no UM/UIM coverage on the policy.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the UM/UIM rejection form was not effective on the date it was signed, because it must be signed contemporaneously with the issuance of the policy.

On October 13, 2009, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. The trial court's written reasons for judgment state, in pertinent part:

State Farm contends that the trial court erroneously relied on "dicta" in the case of Futch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 625 So.2d 1019, 1020 (La.1993) to support its ruling. State Farm further contends that the trial court erred in disregarding Duncan, which holds that the date the UM form is signed is the date it is effective.2

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

In connection with this writ application, there is only one issue for review and consideration: whether the trial court erred in finding that the UM/UIM rejection form at issue was not effective on the date it was signed.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Duncan, 950 So.2d at 546. 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 those ends. La. Code Civ. 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. Duplantis v. Dillard's Dept. Store, 2002-0852, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/9/03), 849 So.2d 675, 679, writ denied, 2003-1620 (La. 10/10/03), 855 So.2d 350. A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ. P. art. 966(B).

In Louisiana, UM coverage is provided for by statute and embodies a strong public policy. Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d 1126, 1130 (La.1987); A.I.U. Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 404 So.2d 948, 949 (La. 1981). The object of UM insurance is to provide lull recovery for automobile accident victims who suffer damages caused by a tortfeasor not covered by adequate liability insurance. Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 609 So.2d 195, 197 (La.1992); Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies, 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. Duncan, 950 So.2d at 547. Thus, under the UM statute, the requirement of UM coverage is an implied amendment to any automobile liability insurance policy, even when not expressly addressed, as UM coverage will be read into the policy unless validly rejected. Id.

The UM statute is to be liberally construed and a rejection of the coverage provided by law must be clear and unmistakable. Roger, 513 So.2d at 1130. The insurer bears the burden of proof that a rejection of coverage or a selection of lower limits has been legally perfected.3

We have reviewed the UM/UIM rejection form signed by Mr. Ragusa and find it is compliant with the six requirements set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Duncan, and thus, is a facially valid waiver of UM coverage.4 Indeed, the plaintiff has not asserted that it is not. Instead, plaintiffs claim is that the form is ineffective, because it was not executed contemporaneously with the issuance of the policy. Impliedly, the trial court agreed with this assertion, because the trial court found that the May 3, 2006 policy, which provided UM coverage, was still in effect, because the amended policy was not issued until May 15, 2006, or after the accident occurred. Therefore, the trial court essentially found that the waiver signed by the insured on May 8, 2006, was ineffective on that date.

The plaintiff relies on Futch, 625 So.2d 1019, a case in which the validity of a waiver of UM coverage was at issue. The plaintiff in that case suffered devastating injuries in an automobile accident and claimed underinsured motorist damages from the excess/umbrella insurer of his employer, Manna International Manufacturing, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding a valid rejection of UM coverage. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, with several justices dissenting and several concurring. The majority held that genuine issues of material fact remained, including whether the individual who executed the waiver, midway into the policy period, had the authority to do so. The majority, quoting from the version of La. R.S. 22:1406 D(1)(a) in effect at the time of the 1984 accident, reasoned that the "implication is that the rejection or selection must be contemporaneous with a policy application or the policy's issuance. . . . Since the rejection or selection becomes part of the policy, it should not affect an existing policy." Futch, 625 So.2d at 1022. In vacating the trial court judgment and remanding for a trial on the merits, the supreme court stated that even if Lemieux (the representative of the insured) were authorized to sign the rejection of UM coverage, it is doubtful that the rejection could alter the existing policy midway into the policy period. Id.

Justice Hall concurred in the result, but expressly noted that the effect of a waiver executed during the policy period is an issue that should be decided by the trial court on remand, without premature comment. Justice Kimball agreed that any discussion of whether a UM waiver may be valid if made after a policy's issuance is "unnecessary dictum." Justice Lemmon concurred, but expressly declined to join in the "dicta" regarding rejection of UM coverage. Id. at 1022-23. On rehearing, the court pointed out with emphasis that the decision merely reversed the summary judgment and "does not preclude the litigation of any issues of law or fact between the parties." Id. at 1023.

Since then, the Futch "dicta" has been primarily cited with disapproval.5 However, plaintiff contends that this court followed the principle established in Futch in Henderson v. Maloid, 96-0285, 96-0286 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/8/96), 683 So.2d 342, writ denied, 96-2901 (La.1/24/97), 686 So.2d 866. In Henderson, the plaintiffs were the wife and children of the insured driver and a passenger killed in an automobile accident.6 Prior to his death, on November 16, 1988, the insured signed an application for insurance; however, the document did not include a demarcation indicating the selection/rejection of UM coverage. Almost five months later, an employee of the insurance agent contacted the insured concerning his failure to check off his selection. According to the employee, the insured instructed her that he had signed the form, that he did not want UM coverage, and that she should "just go ahead and check it and not to worry about it." Pursuant to this purported instruction, the employee testified that she marked an "x" next to the selection rejecting UM coverage. Notably, the employee testified that she did not send a copy of the altered form, indicating a rejection of UM coverage, to the insured. Additionally, she did not note the alteration anywhere on the application or in the insured's file. Nevertheless, she testified that the mark indicating a rejection in UM coverage ". . . must have been made sometime between March 3rd . . . and March 8th. . . ." Id. at 346. The insured (deceased) was obviously unavailable to corroborate this testimony. Indeed, no other witness was offered to corroborate the employee's testimony. Under the tenuous facts of Henderson, this court concluded that there was not a valid waiver of insurance coverage.

We find the plaintiffs reliance on this court's opinion in Henderson misplaced. Significant to this court's ruling in Henderson was the feet that someone other than the insured, the agent, marked the waiver rejecting UM coverage.7 Moreover, no one connected with the insured testified that the waiver of coverage reflected the deceased insured's intent. This court pointedly noted that under the facts of that case, there was not a valid waiver of UM coverage by the insured.

In contrast, in the instant case, Mr. Ragusa attested that he is the owner/manager of the insured business; that he is responsible for making all management decisions on behalf of the business; that he contracted with State Farm to insure a fleet of vehicles owned by the business; that he did not wish to have UM/UIM coverage for the vehicles; that he executed a waiver on May 8, 2006, reflecting his intent to waive UM/UIM coverage; and that he did not pay for nor was he charged for such coverage. Deidra Golphin, a State Farm employee for 17 years, attested that there was no UM insurance coverage applicable to the insurance policy at issue.

In fact, plaintiff has made no allegation that Mr. Ragusa did not sign or otherwise properly complete the rejection form. We observe that the form identifies the insured company, is signed by the legal representative for the company, is dated, the selection of no UM/UIM coverage is initialed, and the form contains the policy number and, therefore, is in compliance with the six tasks identified in Duncan.

Additionally, we distinguish Henderson on the basis that the version of the UM statute in effect at the time that rejection form was signed, La. R.S. 22:1406 D(1)(a)(i), has since been amended on several occasions. For example, at the time the Henderson rejection was initialed by the insurer's employee, each insurer designed its own form.8 Recognizing the problems inherent in allowing insurers to design their own UM forms, the statute was amended to provide that the selection or rejection be made only on a form prescribed by the commissioner of insurance.9 The validity of a waiver is determined by the law in effect at the time the waiver is executed. Roger, 513 So.2d at 1131-32. The version of the statute in effect at the time Mr. Ragusa signed the waiver, La. R.S. 22:680(1)(a)(ii), also contained additional language, which stated in pertinent part:

The statute provides no temporal limitation for executing a UM selection/rejection form. Moreover, Henderson predates Duncan. In Duncan, the supreme court expressly proclaimed ". . . the insured dates the form to determine the effective date of the UM waiver." Duncan, 950 So.2d at 552. Mr. Ragusa knowingly rejected UM/UIM coverage prior to the occurrence of the accident at issue and thus before the plaintiff had accrued any rights.11 As such, the UM/UIM rejection was effective to exclude such coverage, notwithstanding that the issuance of the amended policy, a formality, occurred after the date of the accident.12

CONCLUSION

There is no provision in the UM statute that mandates the selection/rejection of UM coverage by an insured only at the application for or issuance of a policy. For the reasons assigned, we find Henderson is distinguishable from the case at issue. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court rendered in open court on October 13, 2009, and signed on October 29, 2009, and render judgment granting State Farm's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing State Farm from the litigation.

WRIT GRANTED. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND RENDERED.