DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Company, 280 So. 2d 874.

14 citing documents.

  • St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Valentine 665 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Korossy v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. 653 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Mirza v. Outdoor Leisure, Inc. 625 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    We find that the cases of Oceanonics, (La.App.
  • Poirier v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 517 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
  • Distinguished Emar, Inc. v. Webster Homes, Inc. 488 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    We distinguish this case from Oceanonics, (La.App.
  • Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stuckey 486 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    It is the contention of INA that the definitions of bodily injury and property damage preclude coverage under this policy for completed operations beyond the policy term as the loss and resulting damages did not occur within the policy term from September 20, 1977 through September 20, 1980, citing Oceanonics, (La.App.
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Avant 404 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    The exclusionary clauses here involved were properly interpreted in Oceanonics, affirmed (La.App.
  • Hunter v. OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES, ETC. 385 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • Templet v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. 341 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    3rd Cir. 1973); and Oceanonics, (La.App.
  • Thomas v. Appalachian Ins. Co. 335 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    [2] See Oceanonics, (La.App.
  • Taillac v. Westminster Corp. 320 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured;” (emphasis ours) Under the policy’s schedule of hazards covered “Completed Operations” is specifically “Excluded.” Plaintiff attempts to avoid the effect of Oceanonics, aff’g but we find the cited case to be controlling and dispositive of his appeal.
  • Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Company 292 So. 2d 190 La. 1974
    We adopt the majority opinion of the Court of Appeal, and reiterate part of the language of that opinion: "It appears to us that the language used in the Market policy was designed for the express purpose of avoiding the results of the Kendrick, Taylor [1] and Audubon [2] cases.
  • Mut v. Newark Insurance Company 289 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    We note that a similar interpretation was given an identical policy provision of Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Co., La.App., .
  • Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Co. 283 So. 2d 767 La. 1973
    In re: Petroleum Distributing Co. and Tesoro Petroleum Corp., Taylor’s Welding Service, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Cameron, .