Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 230 So. 2d 253.

172 citing documents.

Ark-La-Tex Timber Co. v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 516 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., , (1969); Little v. Kalo Laboratories, Inc., (La.App.
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co. 511 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Little v. Kalo Laboratories, Inc., (La.App.
Mattingly v. State, Dept. of Health 509 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(1969), the court held that an insurer's duty to defend its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.
Distinguished Meloy v. Conoco, Inc. 504 So. 2d 833 La. 1987
Dugas Pest Cont. v. Mut. Fire, Etc., Ins. Co. 504 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
(1969); Mason v. Stauffer Chemical Co., *1054 (La.App.
Southern v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 496 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
in the position of the named insured clothed with all his authority and rights under the policy.” , (1969).
Siat v. Fauria 494 So. 2d 1224 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Malmay v. Sizemore 493 So. 2d 620 La. 1986
Solice v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
(1969) and Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins.
Malmay v. Sizemore 474 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Bourque v. Lehmann Lathe, Inc. 476 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Gregoire v. AFB CONST., INC. 478 So. 2d 538 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
(1969); CBM Engineers, (La.App.
Mason v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 461 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
is applicable in this instance.
CBM Engineers, Inc. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co. 460 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
(1969), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "Generally the insurer's obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.
Collier v. Williams-McWilliams Co., Inc. 459 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
Armstrong v. Land & Marine Applicators, Inc. 463 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
In Cute-Togs of New Orleans, Inc. v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court reiterated the rule regarding the insurer's duty to defend as follows: " , (1969), we clearly stated the `duty to defend' rule as follows: `...
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Guidry 444 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Bldg. Special. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 440 So. 2d 984 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Grady White Boats, Inc. 432 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
3 Cir.1980), writs denied, , 1235 (La.1980)
Camatsos v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 428 So. 2d 1320 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
the Supreme Court noted when a named insured grants unrestricted permission to use an insured vehicle to another, the permittee is placed "in the position of the named insured clothed with all of his authority and rights under the policy."
Schilling v. Bigelow Liptak Corp. 427 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
(1969), rehearing denied, Jan.
Williamson v. Alewine 417 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
(1969); Ada Resources, Inc., et al. v. Don Chamblin & Assoc., Inc., et al., (La.App.
Young Oil Co. of La., Inc. v. Durbin 412 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Millet v. Nelson 408 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Cute'-Togs of No, Inc. v. La. Health Serv., Etc. 386 So. 2d 87 La. 1980
(1969), we clearly stated the "duty to defend" rule as follows: "...
McKinney v. Greene 379 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Guidry v. Zeringue 379 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
The trial court, , (1970), noted the petition's allegations did not unambiguously exclude coverage and held that if the allegations (especially of Trinity's coverage) were assumed to be true, there was liability and coverage, so that Trinity was bound to defend the actions regardless of their outcome.
Pontico v. Roussel 380 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Co. v. Czarniecki, 1969, , (cited in Lee), the First Circuit Court in Lee could equally have released the minor driver’s father’s insurer on that basis: the insurer only insures a relative using a non-owned automobile who does so with permission of its owner (see our insuring clause (b)(2) above).
Applewhite v. City of Baton Rouge 380 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1969) as follows: "Generally the insurer's obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.
Distinguished Richards v. Farmers Export Co. 377 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Third-party plaintiffs also contend that they were due a , (La.
Sonnier Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
(1970), which dealt with an "omnibus" clause extending coverage to persons using the insured automobile with the permission or consent of the named insured and also dealt with the question presented here, coverage of a named insured while using another automobile with the consent of the owner of the ot
West Bros. of DeRidder, La. v. Morgan Roofing Co. 376 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
(1969); Ada Resources, Inc., et al. v. Don Chamblin & Assoc., Inc., et al., (La.
Michel v. Ryan 373 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
(1969); Ada Resources, Inc., et al. v. Don Chamblin & Assoc., Inc., et al., (La.
Cute'-Togs, Etc. v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indemnity Co. 376 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1969): "Generally the insurer's obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.
Cousin v. Page 367 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Lees v. Smith 363 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
(1969); Ada Resources Inc., et al. v. Don Chamblin & Assoc., Inc., et al., (La.App.
American Auto. Ass'n, Inc. v. Globe Indem. Co. 362 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Ada Resources v. Don Chamblin & Associates 361 So. 2d 1339 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Hill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 357 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Rollings 355 So. 2d 1041 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Champion v. Farm Bur. Ins. Co. 352 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Washington v. Dixie Leas. of New Orleans, Inc. 352 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Co. v. Czarniecki, 1969, , .
Hobbs v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Companies 339 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc. 342 So. 2d 167 La. 1977
(1969); Rogillio v. Cazedessus, 241 La.
Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 293 La. 1976
(1969), this court analyzed the question of implied permission for the second permittee (Coleman) in terms of whether it was foreseeable that the first permittee (Cates) would allow someone else to drive when the named insured (Andrews) give his permission to the first permittee.
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc. 331 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
In support of the foregoing argument, , (1969).
Levy v. Duclaux 324 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
*7 In determining whether the insurer had a , : "Generally the insurer's obligation to defend suits against its insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.
Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance 329 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1969), rehearing denied (1970) : “Where a general permission is granted or implied, a deviation from the contemplated route or distances to be traveled is more readily foreseeable than the act of a permittee in lending the automobile to another driver.
Donovan v. Nettles 327 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Concerning all of appellees' obligations to defend their insureds, , (1970): "Generally the insurer's obligation to defend suits against the insured is broader than its liability for damage claims.
Home Insurance Co. v. Doe 321 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Spiers v. Lane, La.App., .” The petition of Home Insurance Company in the principal demand alleges that the collision between the M/VJ.C.