Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pullen v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., 89 So. 2d 373.

24 citing documents.

Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc. 656 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
South Cent. Bell v. Ka-Jon Food Stores 644 So. 2d 357 La. 1994
Landerman v. Liberty Services Inc. 637 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Pullen v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, , (1956), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that “the test of identification for exclusion must be applied to each [assured] specifically and not to all [assureds] collectively.” The Court further stated: [T]he true and proper use and meaning of the unqualified word “[assured]” is directly related t
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 365 So. 2d 471 La. 1978
Miller v. Brown 346 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1956), the trial court held Brown was an insured under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy, but not under the Automobile Liability Policy.
Guilbeau v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 345 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Cf. Pullen v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., , (1956).” We note, however, the Supreme Court made no reference whatsoever to paragraph (ii) which expressly excludes coverage of the owner or any agent or employee of the owner of a hired automobile.
Guilbeau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 338 So. 2d 600 La. 1976
Hornsby v. Ray 327 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Prudhomme v. Vancouver Plywood Co. 240 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
ect to claims made or suits brought against the following insureds: * * * (b) a bailee or borrower of the automobile or an employee of either of them or of the named insured; * * ‡ » Counsel for plaintiff, in urging reversal of the summary judgment entered in favor of Reliance Insurance Company, argues that the following cases should be controlling: Pullen v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., , ; (La.App.
Hebert v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. 204 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
Although there are a number of cases which have permitted the named insured under a liability insurance policy to recover for personal injuries against the insurer [1] , (1956); McDowell v. National Sur.
Welch v. National Surety Corp. 206 So. 2d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Intervenor also cites the Supreme Court case of Pullen v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., et al., , .
Commercial Union Ins. Co. of NY v. Hardcastle 188 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
(1956), once coverage has been extended, as it is quite clearly the purpose of the policy to do and as has been done here, it should be withdrawn only when exclusion is established with certainty.
Sanders v. Kirby 171 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
The case of Pullen v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, , , was distinguished in the Jagneaux case and must be similarly distinguished here.
Bardwell v. England Transportation Company 169 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
Smith v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania 161 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
or acts of the passenger, Don Bolton, which might be established on the trial of the case as a proximate cause of the injury and damage to plaintiff, we are agreeing with the contention of counsel for plaintiff that Don Bolton at the time was `using' the motor vehicle under the liberal interpretation required of such clauses in an insurance policy, , ; Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey Machinery, Inc., La.App., .
Myers v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 152 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
For this same reason, , because in the Pullen case the court was not concerned with the omnibus cause, it having been admitted that the tort feasor was an omnibus insured under the particular provisions of the policy.
Distinguished Jagneaux v. American Automobile Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Counsel for plaintiff in oral argument and in his brief stated that the case of Arceneaux v. London Guarantee and Accident Company, Ltd., supra, had been overruled by the cases of Pullen v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., , (1956), and Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey Machinery, Inc. (La.App., 1 Cir. 1956), .
Embody v. Le Blanc 131 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
which decision was written by the learned trial judge as justice ad hoc.
Anderson v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. 127 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
In the case of Pullen v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 1956, , , the Supreme Court stated the following general rule for the interpretation of exclusion clauses appearing in contracts of insurance: "The exclusion clause must necessarily be examined and interpreted in the light of its own design and intent, as well as in view of the objects and purposes of the polic
Garvey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 125 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Corp., , ; Spurlock v. Boyce Harvey Mach., supra.
Cameron v. Reserve Insurance Company 111 So. 2d 336 La. 1959
Cited on behalf of plaintiff and Reserve are Pullen v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, , , and Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey Machinery, Inc., La.App., .
Jackson v. American Automobile Insurance Company 103 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Plaintiff and intervenor, on the other hand, contend that the facts of this case, and the provisions of the policy here under consideration, , , in which the Supreme Court held the insurer liable.
Bolton v. North River Insurance Company 102 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
or acts of the passenger, Don Bolton, which might be established on the trial of the case as a proximate cause of the injury and damage to plaintiff, we are agreeing with the contention of counsel for plaintiff that Don Bolton at the time was "using" the motor vehicle under the liberal interpretation required of such clauses in an insurance policy, , ; Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey Machinery, Inc., La.App., .
Spurlock v. Boyce-Harvey MacHinery 90 So. 2d 417 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956