DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sumrall v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 60 So. 2d 68.

35 citing documents.

  • Morris v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 897 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • Evans v. State Farm General Insurance Co. 833 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Co., , (1952): Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hussain 775 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    Co., , (1952), the Supreme Court held that: Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Brinston v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 703 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    (1952): Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Pham Vo, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co. 692 So. 2d 1306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • B. BENNETT MFG. v. SC Ins. Co. 692 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    Co., , (1952); Christensen v. State Farm Mut.
  • Miley v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co. 659 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Chisholm v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 618 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • Del-Remy Corp. v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 616 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • Briggs v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. 579 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Co., , (1952), the Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated the legal principles involved in a successful defense by the insurer: ‘Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff [the insured] was respons
  • Christensen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 552 So. 2d 1377 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    Co., , (1952), wherein the court stated: Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Economy Auto Salvage, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. 499 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    The classic statement on the law of arson as a , (1952).
  • Childs v. Zurich American Ins. Co. 476 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Fontenot v. Hanover Ins. Co. 473 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • McClain v. General Agents Ins. Co. of America 438 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    (1952); Wallace v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, (La.App.
  • Theriot v. Lanier 425 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bridges v. Reliance Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Rist v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 376 So. 2d 113 La. 1979
  • Wallace v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 345 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
  • Artigue v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company 339 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Pope v. Republic Underwriters Insurance 334 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Co., , (1952), as follows: “Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Baghramain v. MFA Mutual Ins. Co. 315 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Fuselier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 301 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Swindle v. Maryland Casualty Company 251 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    the Court said: "Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof that the fire was incendiary in origin and that the plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Stevenson v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 239 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    As pointed out by the Trial Judge, in a , , in which the court said: “Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Talbert v. South Carolina Insurance 200 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    The law in a , (1952) : “Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Hope v. Lloyds 171 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
    Co., , (1952); Pizzolato v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.
  • Rudison v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. 152 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Co., , , the Supreme Court with Justice McCaleb as the organ of the Court observed: “Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Davis v. Canadian Fire Insurance Co. 150 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    And, finally, the facts and circumstances of each particular case are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.” Concerning the proof necessary to establish an insurer’s defense of arson, our Supreme Court, , , enunciated the following rule: “Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Heap v. Newark Insurance Co. 129 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    The evidence even fulfills the rule as to circumstantial proof in such a case, namely, “the evidence is of such, import that it will sustain no other reasonable hypothesis but that the claimant is responsible for the fire.” , .
  • Russell v. Niagara Fire Insurance Company 129 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
  • Creel v. Audubon Insurance Company 128 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    In a suit of this nature both plaintiff and defendant agree that the law applicable is found in three cases: Sumrall v. Providence Washington Insurance Company, 1952, , ; Barbari v. Firemen's Insurance Company, La.App.
  • Bennett v. Niagara Fire Insurance Company 126 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    662 , , which is the most recent expression of our Supreme Court regarding the proof necessary to establish an insurer's defense of arson: "`Plaintiff and the defendants agree, as is shown by the briefs of their respective counsel that the law governing cases of this nature is correctly enunciated in Sumrall vs. Providence Washington Insurance Company, , , 69 as follows: `Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of
  • Wells v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company 119 So. 2d 501 La. 1960
    Plaintiff and the defendants agree, , , as follows: “Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.
  • Barbari v. Firemen's Insurance Company 107 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    Co., , , the court stated: "Inasmuch as the defense is arson, the burden rested upon the insurer to establish, by convincing proof, that the fire was of incendiary origin and that plaintiff was responsible for it.