Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Booth v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 218 So. 2d 580.

60 citing documents.

Guidry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 263 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Co. , , 527-8, (1968), the Court stated: [T]he intent of our uninsured motorist statute and the policy endorsement issued thereunder is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists.
Maurice v. Prudential Ins. Co. 831 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
2 Cir. 6/24/98), , (1968) do not support the plaintiff's argument against prescription because the insurance policies in those cases did not contain a provision requiring that litigation be commenced within one year.
We Sell Used Cars, Inc. v. United Nat. Ins. Co. 715 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
art. 3492, and Booth v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 49,148 (La.12/16/68); , .
Gordon v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Sanders v. Wysocki 655 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
See, Booth v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., , -584 (1968).
Higbee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 617 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
(1968), the court stated that the intent of the UM statute and the policy endorsement "is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists."
Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. 597 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Taylor v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 579 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
Sharp v. Daigre 564 So. 2d 303 La. 1990
Co., , (1968); see also Brown v. Progressive Mut.
Sharp v. Daigre 545 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
(1968), appears the following: Financial responsibility statutes have been enacted by many states, including Louisiana, in an attempt to compel a showing of liability insurance or other financial responsibility as a requisite to the operation of motor vehicles.
Jones v. Henry 542 So. 2d 507 La. 1989
Morvant v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 538 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
1st Cir.), writ denied, , (1968).
Bauer v. White 532 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
1st Cir.), writ denied, , (1968).
Kellis v. Farber 523 So. 2d 843 La. 1988
Edmonds v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 508 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Aucoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 499 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Co., , , 28 A.L.R.3d 573 (1968).
Moncrief v. Panepinto 489 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Co., , , 28 A.L.R.3d 573 (1968).
McDill v. Utica Mutual Insurance 465 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Booth v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, , (1969).
Rogers v. Ambassador Ins. Co. 452 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
Booth v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company [ ] (La.
Landry v. Louisiana Hosp. Service, Inc. 449 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Taylor v. Tanner 442 So. 2d 435 La. 1983
Southern American Ins. Co. v. Dobson 441 So. 2d 1185 La. 1983
Hart v. Allstate Ins. Co. 437 So. 2d 823 La. 1983
Stroud v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 429 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Smith v. Royal Globe Insurance 424 So. 2d 1277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Booth v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance *1279 Company
Brown v. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 426 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
[1] In Guidroz , our brethren on the Third Circuit held that since the plaintiff's action against his uninsured motorist carrier was one in contract, , (1968), then interest is recoverable only from the time the debt becomes due under the terms of La.Civ.Code art. 1938.
Strauss v. Allstate Ins. Co. 417 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
2nd Cir. 1968); affirmed , (1968).
Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co. 418 So. 2d 575 La. 1982
Co., (on rehearing); , , 28 A.L.R.3d 573 (1968).
Hall v. Scott 416 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Guidroz v. Tauzin 413 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Fox v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
[5] See, for example, , wherein the uninsured motorist coverage was considered to be a right in contract so as to avoid the prescriptive period for tort actions.
Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 407 So. 2d 401 La. 1981
Co.,, , , 28 A.L.R.3d 573 (1968).
Holley v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. 407 So. 2d 32 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
BOOTH v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO., 1969, ; ."
Tate v. Rea 405 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hoefly v. Government Emp. Ins. Co. 403 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Hebert v. Breaux 398 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
"To reach this conclusion, , (1968): `We conclude that the intent of our uninsured motorist statute and the policy endorsement issued thereunder is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists.'
Branch v. O'BRIEN 396 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
686 , (1972); , 218 So.2d *1376 580 (1968); (La.App.
Earl v. Commercial U. Ins. Co. 391 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
Co., , (1968), as follows: "We conclude that the intent of our uninsured motorist statute and the policy endorsement issue thereunder is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists."
Bourgeois v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 385 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
To reach this conclusion, , (1968): "We conclude that the intent of our uninsured motorist statute and the policy endorsement issued thereunder is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists."
Hickerson v. Protective National Insurance Co. of Omaha 375 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1968) the intent of this act was said to be “to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists.” (La.App.
Palombo v. Broussard 370 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Co., , (1968) wherein it was decided that a suit by an insured against his UM carrier is a suit ex contractu (and not ex delicto) as is a suit against a tortfeasor's insurance company under the La.
Adamski v. Burdell 363 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
This principle, and the relationship between an uninsured motorist carrier, the insured, and the uninsured motorist, , (1968).
Breaux v. Government Employees Insurance 364 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
.” The phrase “legally entitled to recover” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean “simply that the plaintiff must be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist which gives rise to damages and prove the extent of those damages.” Booth v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, , 218 * (1968).
Griffin v. Armond 358 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
After Rushing , the Supreme Court, in 1968, , .
Youngs v. Champagne 348 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
583: “We conclude that the intent of our uninsured motorist statute and the policy endorsement issued thereunder is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists.
Hensley v. Government Emp. Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
(1969), our Supreme Court concluded `that the intent of our uninsured motorist statute and the policy endorsement issued thereunder is to afford protection to the insured when they become the innocent victims of the negligence of uninsured motorists.'
Guillot v. Travelers Indem. Co. 338 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
United States Fire Insurance Company v. Lawson 317 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Powell v. Hendon 308 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
JC BARNES v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. 308 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1968) the court was faced with a suit by petitioners against their own insurer under the uninsured motorist provision of their contract of liability insurance to recover damages resulting from a collision with an uninsured automobile more than two and one half years prior to the institution of suit.