DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Gunter v. Lord, 140 So. 2d 11.

30 citing documents.

  • Bozeman v. State 879 So. 2d 692 La. 2004
    (1962), expresses the Louisiana Supreme Court's acceptance of the collateral source rule."
  • Surgi v. Otis Elevator Co. 541 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    959 , as follows: While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, , (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, ...
  • Norris v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 416 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    La.App., the court held as follows: “While a tort feasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tort feasor himself, Gunter v. Lord, [ ] , the plaintiff’s tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer’s procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord, at .” The Collateral Source Rule is applicable in this case and accordingly, the appellants’ c
  • Bryant v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERV. INC. 406 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    959 , , the collateral source rule provides: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, , (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at ; American Indemnity Co. v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters Inc.
  • Hawthorne v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 387 So. 2d 26 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
    3rd Cir. 1968) we noted the applicability of the collateral source rule as follows: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, , (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of (sic) other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at ; American Indemnity Co. v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc., 196 S
  • Wallace v. Pan American Fire & Cas. Co. 352 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    3rd Cir. 1968), we held as follows: "While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, , (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of (sic) other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at ; American Indemnity Co. v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters Inc., 196 So
  • Norris v. Allstate Insurance Company 293 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    (1962), involved the question of whether an injured passenger in an insured vehicle may recover under both the medical expense provisions of the policy and the liability coverage.
  • Brasseaux v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 295 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
    at IS (1962), liability coverages were held to be contractual obligations.
  • Peterson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 291 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    Defendant argues from Gunter v. Lord, 1962, , , that an injured party cannot recover from both bodily injury liability coverage and medical payment coverage and therefore defendant insurer’s maximum remaining liability is $8,000.
  • Crenwelge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 277 So. 2d 155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
    (1962), our Supreme Court held that injured automobile passengers, who were paid their medical expenses under medical payments provisions of the policy, could not again be awarded the same medical expenses in a tort action brought directly against the insurer under the same policy.
  • Dupre v. Vidrine 261 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
    (1962), our Supreme Court held that automobile passengers who received medical expenses under medical payments provisions could not seek double recovery of these expenses in a tort action under the same policy.
  • Trahan v. Gulf Crews, Inc. 246 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    (1962) requires the offset which they urge.
  • Hall v. State, Department of Highways 213 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
    While a tortfeasor is entitled to credit for payments made through insurance procured by the tortfeasor himself, , (1962), the plaintiff's tort recovery is not diminished because of payments made through insurance of other collateral sources independent of the wrongdoer's procuration or contribution, Gunter v. Lord at ; American Indemnity Co. v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters Inc.
  • American Indemnity Co. v. New York F. & M. Under., Inc. 196 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    In support of said proposition, , .
  • Beavers v. Butler 188 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    Thus, , (1962) , La.App., 3d Cir. 1963— writs refused, 244 La.
  • Sonnier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 179 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
  • Fontana v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 173 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
    2d 488 (amount of award modified, , ).
  • Debautte v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 170 So. 2d 234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    the Supreme Court held that an injured automobile passenger who had been paid for medical expenses under the medical payments provision of an automobile policy could not be awarded the same medical expenses in a tort action brought directly against the insurer.
  • Cormier v. Traders & General Insurance Company 159 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    our Supreme Court held that: "* * * it was not contemplated that an injured person should collect his medical expenses twice, i. e., that having already been paid such expenses at the instance of the insured by the insurance company following the accident, that he should be again awarded the same medi
  • Dever v. GEORGE THERIOR'S INC. 159 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    3 Cir., (amended on other grounds, , ) ($13,000); Thornton v. F. Strauss & Son, Inc., La.App.
  • Bodan v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS'INSURANCE COMPANY 160 So. 2d 410 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
  • Dowden v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 158 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    the Supreme Court recently interpreted the medical payments clause as preventing an insurer from being held liable for medical expenses under both the medical payments and the liability clauses of the policy, as follows, : "* * * when the instrument is viewed as a whole and the intention
  • Pitre v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 154 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
    the Supreme Court held that where injured automobile passengers had' been paid their medical expenses under medical payments provisions of automobile policies, they could not be awarded the same medical expenses in a tort action brought directly against the insurer.
  • Poe v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 154 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Gandy v. Feazel 155 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Both the district judge and counsel for Casualty Reciprocal Exchange rely upon the pronouncements in Wise v. Agricultural Insurance Company, (La.App., 2nd Circuit, 1962, writs denied), , , .
  • Bourgeois v. Francois 152 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Wise v. Agricultural Insurance Company, La.App., ; , .
  • Jeffers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 149 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    Although the record indicates that these medical expenses were paid by an insurer, it does not indicate that they were paid by the present defendant, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, so as to constitute a , .
  • Roux v. Brickett 149 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
  • Overruled Mundy v. Continental Insurance Co. 147 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    decided after this suit was filed.
  • Wise v. Agricultural Insurance Company 140 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    In a recent case, Gunter et al. v. Lord et al., La., , the docket of the Supreme Court, it was held that collection could not be made twice for medical expenses from an insurer—first, under the provisions relating to the payment of medical expenses, and then under the general liability features of the policy.