DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Banquer v. Guidroz, 8 So. 3d 559.

13 citing documents.

  • Johnny Carval Havard v. Ricky Jeanlouis, Et Al. La. 2022
  • Berkley Assurance Company v. Melissa Willis, as parent/guardian of MacY Lee Willis La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    5/15/09), Voinche v. Capps, 14- 1498, p. 1 (La.
  • Johnny Carval Havard v. Ricky Jeanlouis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    In Harper v. Direct General Insurance Company, 08–2874, (La.2/13/09), and Banquer v. Guidroz, 09–466 (La.5/15/09), our supreme court recognized that when a corporation is rejecting UM coverage, the requirement that the insured or the insured’s legal representative sign the form is met when an officer or employee of the corporation who has the authority to reject UM coverage signs the form.
  • Darius Troy Barras and Julie A. Barras v. Cardinal Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    5/15/09), (per curiam), which presented the identical issue.
  • Aaron Allen Stall v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Florida La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    5/15/09), the supreme court found a UM coverage waiver was valid where the name of the person who signed the form did not appear on the form, but the name of the corporation on whose behalf he was acting did appear on the form.
  • Stall v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. 237 So. 3d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    5/15/09), , the supreme court found a UM coverage waiver was valid where the name of the person who signed the form did not appear on the form, but the name of the corporation on whose behalf he was acting did appear on the form.
  • Lonny Hayes v. Viviana Trevino De Barton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    5/15/09), which “declined to apply a hypertechnical interpretation of the Duncan requirements.” In Banquer, the supreme court found a valid waiver of UM coverage based on a UM waiver form “containing the signature without the printed name of the legal representative of the corporate insured.” Scarborough, 109 So.3d at 561.
  • Villalobos v. USAgencies Casualty Insurance Co. 112 So. 3d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Banquer v. Guidroz, 09-466, p. 2 (La.5/15/09), -61 .
  • John K. Scarborough v. Carol A. Randle La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • Scarborough v. Randle 109 So. 3d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Our supreme court declined to apply a hypertechnical interpretation of the Duncan requirements in Banquer v. Guidroz, 09-466 (La.5/15/09), .
  • Terrell v. Fontenot 96 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Co., 08-2874 (La.2/13/09), , and Banquer v. Guidroz, 09-466 (La.5/15/09), .
  • James Bergeron v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    5/15/09), our supreme court recognized that when a corporation is rejecting UM coverage, the requirement that the insured or the insured’s legal representative sign the form is met when an officer or employee of the corporation who has the authority to reject UM coverage signs the form.
  • Bergeron v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 92 So. 3d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Harper v. Direct General Insurance Company, OS-2874, (La.2/13/09), , and Banquer v. Guidroz, 09-466 (La.5/15/09), , our supreme court recognized that when a corporation is rejecting UM coverage, the requirement that the insured or the insured’s legal representative sign the form is met when an officer or employee of the corporation who has the authority to reject UM coverage signs the form.