DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Deane v. McGee, 260 So. 2d 669.

63 citing documents.

  • Lee v. Sapp 163 So. 3d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    *64 -697 , (1972), the plaintiffs, residents of Florida, were injured in an accident while visiting Louisiana.
  • Armenia Coffee v. American Nat. Fire Ins. 946 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
  • Champagne v. Ward 893 So. 2d 773 La. 2005
    (1972), the plaintiffs, residents of Florida, were injured in an accident while *787 visiting Louisiana.
  • Livas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 797 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    (1972); Graham v. American Cas.
  • Gentry v. Meade 767 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Co., 261 La.
  • Hull v. Louisiana Indem. 606 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    [1] , (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court interprets the "pro rata" provision of the "Other Insurance" clause to permit pro ration among other insurers.
  • Fay v. Willis 577 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., 261 La.
  • Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. of America 571 So. 2d 127 La. 1990
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Co., 261 La.
  • Stewart v. Robinson 521 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    85 , (1972)] and Deane [ v. McGee, , (1972) ] supra, stand for the proposition that the uninsured motorist statute embodies public policy and, thus, any clause in derogation of the mandatory requirements set forth in the statute is invalid insofar as it conflicts therewith.
  • Clark v. Harris 522 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • Ark-La-Tex Timber Co. v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 516 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    2d Cir.1964), writ granted on other grounds, , (1972).
  • Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co. 464 So. 2d 1015 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Carona v. State Farm Ins. Co. 458 So. 2d 1275 La. 1984
    1976); Deane v. McGee, 261 La.686, (1972).
  • Bloodworth v. Carroll 455 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    urance policy issued in one state on an automobile that within reasonable intention will be operated in interstate travel, the law of the forum state in which an accident occurs may be deemed to be the state in which the policy was intended to have effect and to have the most significant relationship in determining the application of a standard automobile liability policy, Deane v. McGee, supra [ ], 260 So.2d [669] at 674 [(1972)] (concurring opinion), particularly where the vehicle is principal
  • Richard v. Beacon Nat. Ins. Co. 442 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Art. 10, , (1972), (La.App.
  • Block v. Reliance Ins. Co. 433 So. 2d 1040 La. 1983
    85 , (1972), , (1972), first approved combining, or "stacking", benefits under uninsured motorist endorsements.
  • Wright v. Aetna Casualty Insurance 428 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Wattigney v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 407 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Hubbard v. Milner 408 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    *1006 (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Co., 261 La.
  • Nall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 406 So. 2d 216 La. 1981
  • Bond v. Commercial Union Assur. Co. 407 So. 2d 401 La. 1981
  • Burns v. Fernandez 401 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
  • Branch v. O'BRIEN 396 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    85 , (1972); , (1972); Booth v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 253 La.
  • Hebert v. Ordoyne 388 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    684 , (1972) and Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La.
  • Hickerson v. Protective Nat. Ins. Co. 383 So. 2d 377 La. 1980
  • Breaux v. Government Emp. Ins. Co. 373 So. 2d 1335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Plaintiffs argue that because two vehicles were insured under Traders' policy and separate premiums were paid for each coverage, they are entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to Barbin v. U. S. F. & G. Co., , (1972).
  • Breaux v. Government Emp. Ins. Co. 369 So. 2d 1335 La. 1979
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., 261 La.
  • Manual v. American Indem. Co. 368 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    85 , (1972); , (1972); Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
  • Briley v. Falati 367 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    22:1406D(1)(c) [1] Pretermitted, among other issues, is Liberty's substantial [but probably incorrect— , (1972)] contention that the applicable law is that of Michigan, where its policy was issued.
  • Wickham v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America 366 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1972); Chase v. Safeco Ins.
  • Breaux v. Government Employees Insurance 364 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La.
  • Casey v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America 360 So. 2d 1386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    85 , (1972); , (1972); (La.App.
  • Holmes v. Reliance Ins. Co. 359 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    The substantial issues on appeal are: (1) , invalidate the primary and excess insurance provisions of the uninsured motorist coverages by Kenilworth and Reliance?
  • Anderson v. West 354 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    85 , (1972), , (1972) and Barbin v. U.S.F.
  • Chase v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 345 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    (1972); Jahrman v. Valley Air Park, Inc., (La.App.
  • Robinson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 342 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Guillot v. Travelers Indem. Co. 338 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La.
  • Thornton v. Moran 341 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    85 , (1972) , ; (3rd La.App., 1970); (1st La.App., 1975).
  • Seaton v. Kelly 339 So. 2d 731 La. 1976
  • Posey v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    85 , (1972); , (1972); Crenwelge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
  • Sutton v. Langley 330 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    Special rules for particular kinds of contracts are stated in Title B of this Chapter."In a pre- Jagers case, , (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court, with Justice Summers writing for the Court, held that Florida law applied to a standard form insurance contract between the insurer and Florida residents involved in an accident in Louisiana.
  • Raggio v. Volkswagen Insurance Co. 327 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    (1972) another type of other insurance provision was considered.
  • Veal v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Company 325 So. 2d 795 La. 1976
    (1972); Graham v. American Casualty Company, 261 La.
  • Phillips v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 325 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Phillips v. Barraza 320 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    85 , (1972), , (1972), the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the limiting clauses in insurance policies relative to the application of other insurance as excess insurance or in a pro-rata fashion are unenforceable in a situation where, as here, the damages claimed exceed the total sum of the policies.
  • Bourgeois v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 316 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    The holding of Graham that the law requires that each policy issued must provide not less than the minimum $5,000 , (1972).
  • Landry v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. 320 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    185 , (1972); , (1972); Crenwelge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
  • Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 315 So. 2d 754 La. 1975
  • Brister v. American Indemnity Company 313 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
  • Hebert v. Green 311 So. 2d 223 La. 1975
    (1972) an "excess" provision of an "other insurance" clause precluded total recovery in excess of the highest applicable limit in any of several otherwise applicable policies providing uninsured motorist coverage.