Guin v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.
Guin v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 68 So. 2d 752 (La. 1953).
Cited by
- Lobue v. Simco Industries, Inc. 690 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
- Gottlieb v. Tulane Univ. of Louisiana 529 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
- Boulos v. Morrison 503 So. 2d 1 La. 1987
- Allen v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 243 So. 2d 905 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
- Wilks v. Allstate Insurance Company 195 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
- Russell v. Niagara Fire Insurance Company 129 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
- Crawley v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 107 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
- Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey MacHinery 90 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
- Guin v. Commercial Casualty Insurance 68 So. 2d 757 La. 1953
Opinion text
McCALEB, Justice (concurring). I agree that the insurers are liable and also that the penalties and attorney fees are properly assessed against Calvert Fire Insurance Company. At the time the company offered to “process” the claim under Condition 6 of the policy, it was no doubt aware that plaintiff could not afford to settle with it for fifty percent of the loss in view of the fact that Commercial Casualty Insurance Company had denied any liability on its policy; It strikes me that, had Calvert’s stand been a sincere one, it would have continued' to assert its prior offer when sued in- this case. Instead, it took the groundless position that it was not liable at all alleging that plaintiff had set fire to *58 his truck with the intent and purpose of collecting the insurance. In view of all of the circumstances of the case, I find it difficult to believe that the original offer of adjustment on a pro-rata basis was founded in good faith.