Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance, 103 So. 2d 449.

21 citing documents.

Baltazar Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
15 In arguing that the insurers both waived any defenses arising from MWV’s undisputed breach of the conditions precedent by denying coverage after the settlements, MWV relies upon Thomas W. Hooley & So.2d 449 (1958).
Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corp. 274 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
In arguing that the insurers both waived any defenses arising from MWV's undisputed breach of the conditions precedent by denying coverage after the settlements, MWV relies upon Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company , , (1958).
Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp. 66 So. 3d 438 La. 2011
Co., , (1958), to support the trial court’s judgment that Continental’s breach of its duty to defend resulted in a waiver of its coverage defenses.
Grefer v. Travelers Insurance Company 919 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
Thomas v. Gallant Insurance 789 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Co., , (1958), and subsequent cases, Underwriters’ wrongful denial of coverage results in the forfeiture of any right to enforce policy provisions against its insured.
Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd. 634 So. 2d 1180 La. 1994
Co., , (1958); Duchmann v. Orleans Maritime Brokerage, Inc., (La.App.
Kold, Inc. v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 496 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
2 Cir.1974); and Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co., , (1958).
Emile M. Babst Co. v. Nichols Construction Corp. 488 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
See Thomas W. Hooley & , (1958).
LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 365 So. 2d 471 La. 1978
Commercial Capital Systems, Inc. v. Paille 333 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
In the leading case of Thomas W. Hooley & Sons v. Zurich General Accident & Life Insurance Co., , (1958), Justice Tate said in interpretating the care, custody or control exclusion that "damaged property or premises merely incidental or adjacent to the contracted object upon which work is being performed by the insured is not within the "care, custody or control' of the insured for purposes of the
Hendrix Elec. Co., Inc. v. Casualty Reciprocal Exch. 297 So. 2d 470 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
Heimbaugh v. Federal Insurance Company 281 So. 2d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Co., , , 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 ."
Eymard v. C & W Well Servicing, Inc. 258 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Giddings v. Coal Operators Casualty Co. 205 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Co., , , 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 (footnote 5), 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 .” (1st Cir., 1960).
Aladdin Oil Company v. Rayburn Well Service, Inc. 202 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
The items of damage, or the damaged items, are those incidental to and/or adjacent to the contracted property that was physically under the care, custody and control of Rayburn, Inc., and the exclusion does not apply: Hooley & ; ."
Benoit v. Fuselier 195 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Co., , , 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 .
Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 v. Delta Gas, Inc. 171 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Co., , , 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 ; S. R. Zagst & Co. v. Southern Surety Co., 148 La.
International Union of Operating Engineers v. Guy Scroggins, Inc. 168 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
In the case of Thomas W. Hooley & , , 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 , our State Supreme Court said: “Plaintiff’s petition demanded $730.50 as reasonable attorney’s fees.
Bertrand v. Ducote 128 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Finn v. Delta Drilling Company 121 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Co., , (footnote 5), 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 .
Knight v. Bossier 118 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Co., , , 67 A.L.R.2d 1078 ; Annotation, "Scope of clause excluding from contractor's or similar liability policy damage to property in care, custody, or control of insured," 62 A.L.R.2d 1242 .