Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fertitta v. Palmer, 211 So. 2d 282.

42 citing documents.

Katty Calderon, Natural Mother of the Decedent, Avril Sanabria Versus Lezly Sanabria, Suly Sanabria, Jonathan Rivera, Abc Insurance … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
App. 2nd Cir. 1982) ( So.2d 282, 285 (La.
Sherri Arceneaux v. Amanda Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
conduct in this case was use of the vehicle is a holding that “use” may be interpreted to mean “while using.” So.2d 282 (1968).
Andrew Richard v. Robert Brasseaux, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
630 So.2d at 763; So.2d 282, 285 (1968).
Richard v. Brasseaux 50 So. 3d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Baker v. Hurst 50 So. 3d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Thomas Allen v. Allstate Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Interstate, supra at 763; So.2d 282, 285 (1968).
Allen v. Allstate Insurance Co. 10 So. 3d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Interstate, supra at 763 ; , (1968).
Hebert v. Webre 982 So. 2d 770 La. 2008
Interstate, supra at 763 ; , (1968).
Ursin v. Webb 945 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Hill v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 935 So. 2d 691 La. 2006
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Gray Ins. Co. v. Old Tyme Builders, Inc. 878 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Thiels v. AMERICAN INTERN. SOUTH INS. CO. 861 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Charles Thiels v. American International South Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763; So.2d 282, 285 (1968).
Trammel v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 811 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Casso, 688 So.2d at 183 , , (1968).
Doe v. Mires 741 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Interstate, 98-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Doe v. Mires 741 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Ledet v. Leighton 736 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cooper 707 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Casso v. United Cabs, Inc. 688 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Criticized Mahlum v. Baker 639 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Crabtree v. State Farm Ins. Co. 632 So. 2d 736 La. 1994
Interstate, 93-0911 p. 5, 630 So.2d at 763 ; , (1968).
Smith v. Estrade 589 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Alford v. Kaiser 589 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Such an interpretation would extend the meaning of the arising-out-of-use provision of the policy beyond the contemplation of the parties to the contract and would not comport with the common-sense interpretation *549 , (1968).
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Joe Dean Contr. 584 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
[1] , (1968); Copes v. Copeland Bldg.
Kessler v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. 573 So. 2d 476 La. 1991
Byrne v. State Farm Insurance Co. 572 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Currera v. Loyd 531 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
The Carter holding evolved from three previous Supreme Court decisions; , (1968); (La.
Foster v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 504 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Blue v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 493 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1 So.2d 282 (1968), a determination of whether the injury-causing incident arises out of the use of a vehicle is best made by using a common sense approach.
Lucey v. Harris 490 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
The Carter holding evolved from three previous Supreme Court decisions; , (1968)
Bolin v. Safeco Insurance Companies 431 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called ‘bodily injury’, sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; * * , (1968) and Bruno v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, (La.App.
Carter v. CITY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ETC. 423 So. 2d 1080 La. 1982
Co., (a police escort to a funeral procession negligently failed to block a crossing highway); , (1968) (a sign was unloaded from the insured vehicle and negligently placed in a store); (La.App.
Copes v. Copeland Bldg. Supply, Inc. 415 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Little v. Kalo Laboratories, Inc. 406 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
(1968), that an insurance contract should not be interpreted so as to lead to absurd conclusions.
Tobin v. Williams 396 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
In his written reasons for judgment the trial judge stated: "The Louisiana Supreme Court, , [282] (1968) probably said it best when they held that the Court of Appeal, in denying that certain actions constituted `use' of the automobile, properly used a `common sense' approach.
Lucas v. Deville 385 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
In resolving the issue herein, i. e., whether the quoted clause in State Farm's policy excludes coverage, , (1968), the Supreme Court referred to the "common sense" approach in determining whether the negligent act which caused the injury was a natural and reasonable consequence of the use of the vehicle, within the contemplation of the parties negotiating the insurance contract.
Johns v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 349 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
In resolving the issue herein, i. e., whether the quoted clause in State Farm's policy excludes coverage, , (1968), the Supreme Court referred to the "common sense" approach in determining whether the negligent act which caused the injury was a natural and reasonable consequence of the use of the vehicle, within the contemplation of the parties negotiating the insurance contract.
Bruno v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 337 So. 2d 241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1968), held that a "common sense" approach should be used in determining whether the negligent act which caused the injury was a natural and reasonable consequence of the use of the vehicle, within the contemplation of the parties negotiating the insurance contract.
Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Bringol 262 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
(1968); Barrois v. Service Drayage Company, infra.
Barrois v. Service Drayage Company 250 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Mays v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 242 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1970
For a discussion of the "common sense" , .
Heider v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. 231 So. 2d 438 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1970
366 , , we cannot say that the general award to Mrs. Heider of $6,500.00 was either inadequate or excessive.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by