Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hawayek v. Simmons, 91 So. 2d 49.

14 citing documents.

Toups v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 483 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
On the issue of double recovery, (Orl.App.1956), stated: "...
Holman v. Reliance Ins. Cos. 414 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
" where recovery was granted to a fisherman hooked in the cheek by his fishing partner while casting, the court held: * * * * * * "`...
Hall v. Safeco Insurance 374 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Bourque v. Duplechin 331 So. 2d 40 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Richmond v. EMPLOYERS'FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 298 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Hawayek v. Simmons, La.App., , relied upon by Appellants, is inapposite.
Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 301 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
where recovery was granted to a fisherman hooked in the cheek *409 by his fishing partner while casting, the court held: "No one will deny that a participant in almost any game or sport can be said, in legal contemplation, that by the fact of his participation therein he assumes all risks incidental
Wells v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Bogalusa 150 So. 2d 324 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
“In brief, counsel for defendant refers to a [ 61 A.L.R.2d 1254 ], (La.App.1956) wherein the Court said: “ ‘No one will deny that a participant in almost any game or sport can be said, in legal contemplation, that by the fact of his participation therein, he assumes all risks incidental to the particular game or sport which are obvious and foreseeable.’ (sic) “V
Vogt v. Hotard 144 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
We quote the following from Hawayek v. Simmons, La.App., , 61 A.L.R.
Transcontinental Insurance Co. v. Gillette Oil Co. 139 So. 2d 541 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Hawayek v. Simmons, La.App., , 61 A.L.R.2d 1254 ; Northwestern Mutual Fire Association v. Allain, 226 La.
Gunter v. Lord 140 So. 2d 11 La. 1962
The Trial Court, following the reasoning in Hawayek v. Simmons (Orleans Court of Appeal, 1956), , 61 A.L.R.2d 1254 , rejected plaintiff’s demands for medical expenses on the ground that they had already been paid under the medical payments provision of the policy; the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed the Trial Court on this issue, and adopting the ruling in Distefano v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company
Dumas v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 125 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
In Hawayek v. Simmons, 1956, , 61 A.L.R.2d 1254 , the Orleans Court of Appeal held, as follows: "But we do not believe that plaintiff is entitled to recover both under the medical payments clauses and the liability clauses for medical expenses incurred in one and the same accident.
Bordelon v. Great American Indemnity Company 124 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1960
App.1956, , 61 A.L.R.2d 1254 .
Distefano v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company 98 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
This was done under the authority of Hawayek v. Simmons, La.App., , wherein our brothers of the Orleans Court of Appeal denied recovery of medical expenses under both the medical payments clause and the liability clauses of a comprehensive personal liability policy on the ground that the injured party had the option of seeking recovery under either clause but not under both.