DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 214 So. 2d 116.

33 citing documents.

  • Rogers v. Integrated Exploration & Prod., LLC 265 So. 3d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    App. 1st Cir.1992) (citing Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company , , , 118 (1968) ; Dean v. State Farm Mut.
  • Sonya Theriot v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    Co., So.2d 116, 118 (1968).
  • Green v. Michael Johnson, State Farm Ins. Agency, Allstate Ins. Co. 241 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 1st Cir. 1967), amended and affirmed , , (1968).
  • Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 939 So. 2d 1235 La. 2006
    Co., , (1968) is not applicable either.
  • Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 914 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    Moreover, we find the trial court erroneously relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court's opinion in Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968) in determining that the State Farm personal liability umbrella policy and the Evanston personal umbrella liability policy are mutually repugnant and therefore share on a pro-rata basis.
  • Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 784 So. 2d 637 La. 2001
    Co., , (1968) (a reduction clause in policy, which provided for limits of $100,000, served to restrict coverage in certain cases to the minimum amount required by law.)
  • Spiro v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 761 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    This court's resolution in Chedville followed the rule first set forth in Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Co., , (1968), which makes each insurer liable in proportion to the limit of its respective policy.
  • Yarbrough v. Federal Land Bank of Jackson 731 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Co., , (1968); Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc., 95-1574 (La.App.
  • Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc. 690 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., , (1968); Sledge v. Louisiana Dep't of Transp.
  • Chedville v. Insurance Co. of North America 664 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    The next level of coverage should be apportioned according to the formula set forth in Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968), for dealing with situations such as this where to give effect to the provisions of both coverage would render neither liable, a result that is clearly not intended and contrary to public policy.
  • Rocha v. Landry 615 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    1st Cir. 1967), affirmed and amended on other grounds, , (1968), stated that, “we concur in the result reached by our brothers in the Third Circuit in Lincombe and State Farm cases_” 200 So.2d at 77 .
  • Penton v. Hotho 601 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968) (excess v. escape); Dean v. State Farm Mut.
  • Stanfield v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. 581 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
    In brief, Hartford calls our attention to Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Co., , (1968) and Dette v. Convington Motors, Inc., (La.App.
  • Bergquist v. Fernandez 535 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    Co., , (1968); Muse v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
  • Dean v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 518 So. 2d 1115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    Cf. Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , 214 So.
  • Cruz v. Home Insurance Co. 511 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968).
  • Sledge v. La. Dept. of Transp. & Development 492 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968).
  • Dette v. Covington Motors, Inc. 486 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    It was held by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, 252 La.709, (1968), that where there is conflict between an an "escape clause" (such as the one found in the Liberty Mutual policy) and an "excess clause" (such as the one found in the Allstate policy), the net effect is that both clauses are cancelled out, so far as the denial of primary coverage is concerned.
  • Wallace v. Globe Life & Accident Insurance Co. 478 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Art. 1945, Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968); Hampton v. Lincoln Nat.
  • American Bank & Trust Co. v. Continental Casualty Co. 476 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, and citations therein.
  • Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 434 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    a case involving proper apportionment of an insured loss between two insurance companies, noted the following general principles in the resolution of such questions: The principal consideration in the interpretation of insurance policies is to ascertain the intention of the parties from the
  • Dette v. Covington Motors, Inc. 426 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    1st Cir.1967), modified in part, , (1968).
  • Guilbeau v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 345 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968).
  • Wigley v. Commercial Union Insurance 339 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Co., , (1968).
  • Thomas v. Neeb-Kearney & Co. 334 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    Presumably, Liberty Mutual refers to the rationale of Graves v. Trader & General Insurance Company, , , in which the court held repugnant two pro rata clauses which, if interpreted literally, would have provided no insurance even though the driver and the vehicle involved were each covered by separate policies of liability insurance.
  • Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Roger Wilson, Inc. 291 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
  • Juan v. Harris 279 So. 2d 187 La. 1973
    Employers argues alternatively that the Hartford excess provision and the Employers' pro rata clauses [8] conflict, and being repugnant, should both be disregarded under the rationale of Graves v. Trader & General Insurance Co.
  • Juan v. Harris 263 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Employers’ cites Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968) as controlling and that a pro-rata distribution should be made.
  • Moore v. Prudential Insurance 263 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    Co., , ; Theye Y Ajuria v. Pan American Life Ins.
  • Lamastus & Associates, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance Co. 260 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
    Such are the cases of Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968); Lincombe v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
  • Shirley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 256 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , (1968).
  • Veillon v. Southern Farm Bureau 254 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
    A reading of the above would seem to indicate the correctness of Hardware Mutual's argument, however this endorsement is not significantly different from the provisions of the policy considered by our Supreme Court in Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, , .
  • Thompson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 252 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    See Graves v. Traders & General Insurance Company, et al., , .