Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, 166 So. 2d 274.

31 citing documents.

United Home Care, Inc., Trinity Home Health Care, Inc. and John D. Jones v. Charlie Simpson, Charles Gardner, … La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
Shane Salathe Versus The Parish of Jefferson Through the Department of Sewerage La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2021
Ronald Lee Stutes and Carroll Lynn Stutes v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Stuteses reserved their rights to proceed against R&L’s excess insurers, Zurich and AGLIC, as authorized in Futch v Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 1 The Stuteses’ daughter, Ashely, also filed suit against the defendants but later dismissed her claims with prejudice.
Ronald Lee Stutes and Carroll Lynn Stutes v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Stuteses reserved their rights to proceed against R&L’s excess insurers, Zurich and AGLIC, as authorized in Futch v Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 1 The Stuteses’ daughter, Ashely, also filed suit against the defendants but later dismissed her claims with prejudice.
Ronald Lee Stutes, Et Ux. v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Stuteses reserved their rights to proceed against R&L’s excess insurers, Zurich and AGLIC, as authorized in Futch v Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 1 The Stuteses’ daughter, Ashely, also filed suit against the defendants but later dismissed her claims with prejudice.
Dukes v. Declouette 40 So. 3d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Futch *1237 v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, , (1964); (La.App.
Burge v. NORTH. NAT. INS. CO. OF MILWAUKEE 14 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
Co. of New York, , (1964).
Burge v. Northwestern National Insurance Co. of Milwaukee 14 So. 3d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Co. of New York, , , |7277 (1964).
Finnie v. LeBlanc 875 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Co. of New York, , (1964).
Gaynell Finnie, Indiv. v. Jerry Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Co. of New York, So.2d 274, 277 (1964).
Rollins v. Richardson 833 So. 2d 921 La. 2002
Co. of New York, , (1964).
Thompson v. Shay 817 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Rather, we believe this case is more consistent with the case of Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, , (1964), which was relied on by the trial court here.
Rollins v. Richardson 803 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
The issue regarding an insured's unilateral settlement with an alleged tortfeasor and without the participation of the insurer was considered by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (La.
Lott v. Lebon 687 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
See also Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964).
Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Companies 547 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., , (1964).
Laper v. Board of Com'rs 523 So. 2d 926 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., , (1964).
Jones v. Allstate Insurance Co. 395 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., , (La.App.
Gasquet v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Two most important Louisiana cases on point are Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964), and Benroth v. Continental Casualty Company, 132 F.Supp.
American Home Etc. v. Commercial Union, Etc. 379 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
In any event, the Maryland v. Marquette case must yield to Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964).
Breaux v. Government Employees Insurance 364 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
This identical issue was considered by the Supreme Court in Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company
Honeycutt v. Town of Boyce 327 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
The same distinction applies to Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964) where the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the release of the primary insurer did not constitute splitting the cause of action.
Ellerson v. Scott 320 So. 2d 527 La. 1975
See: Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., , (1964); West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La.
Overruled Wirick v. Wyble 300 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
However, we note that the Bergeron case was overruled on this point by the Supreme Court in Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., , (1964).
Dupre v. Vidrine 261 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
For a similar holding, see Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964).
Sherwood v. Stein 259 So. 2d 876 La. 1972
Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964); West v. Monroe Bakery, Inc., 217 La.
Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 223 So. 2d 858 La. 1969
189 , , and Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , , the insurer herein became unconditionally bound to plaintiff for a certain proportionate amount of the proceeds of the policy upon the happening of the accident and that this right could not be lost or diminished, except by the action of the claimant herself.
King v. King 217 So. 2d 395 La. 1968
189 , ; Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , .
Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 212 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
189 , (1950); and Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964), are cited as authority for that argument.
Richard v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 212 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
189 , (1950); and Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , (1964), are cited as authority for that argument.
King v. King 210 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Further, even if it could be found that the alleged breach was material and prejudicial, , (Supreme Court July 1, 1964).
Plummer v. Traders & General Insurance Company 183 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company, , .