Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Jagers v. Royal Indemnity Company, 276 So. 2d 309.

68 citing documents.

Brenda Bergeron , Individually An D On Behalf Of Her La. 2021
Christy Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Co. of Hartford, Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La.
Robinette v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 229 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Co. of Hartford, Gaspard v, LeMaire, 245 La.
Lonny Hayes v. Viviana Trevino De Barton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Co., see Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 00-947 (La.
Parker v. Safeway Insurance Co. 152 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., in that only Louisiana has any interest in the application of its law to the claim.
Nelson Radiology Associates, L.L.C. v. Integrity Medical Systems, Inc. 16 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
King v. Illinois National Insurance 9 So. 3d 780 La. 2009
Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp. 921 So. 2d 189 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Distinguished Dunlap v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest 907 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Champagne v. Ward 893 So. 2d 773 La. 2005
Williams v. Jackson Parish Hospital 798 So. 2d 921 La. 2001
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 774 So. 2d 119 La. 2000
Overruled Heinick v. Jefferson Parish School Bd. 701 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Trautman v. Poor 685 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. 677 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Partin v. Dolby 652 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Under the "interest analysis" theory, we weigh the interests of Georgia, Delaware, and Louisiana to see which state law has the most significant relationship to the transaction and to the parties.
Hui-Kuang Tu v. Guidry 653 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Kennington v. H. Blume Johnson, Inc. 632 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
the Louisiana Supreme Court applied the "interest analysis" approach to find that the suit between two Louisiana domiciliaries was governed by Louisiana law and that Mississippi had no interests in the lawsuit.
Hanks v. Shell Oil Co. 631 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Levy v. Jackson 612 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court applied the "interest analysis" approach and stated that Louisiana law should be applied when this state has an interest in applying its law and the foreign state has none.
Willett v. NATIONAL FIRE & MAR. INS. CO. 594 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
the Sutton court examined the interests of the two states, as follows: We recognize that Texas is not without any interests in the uninsured motorist coverage question.
Taylor v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 579 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
Kirby v. Kirby 579 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
However, plaintiff raises the "interest analysis" theory, discussed by the Louisiana *513 (La.
Piper v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. 567 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Conversely, there does not appear to be a question as to whether the lessee-driver is an insured under the terms of the policyshe apparently is not, otherwise this writ would not be before us. Under the "interest analysis" the issue of fault as it concerns the tortious act of the lessee-driver is to be determined according to Louisiana law.
Pittman v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. 559 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Fontana v. Foster 547 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
1970) (-12 (La.1973)), has clearly observed that “A policy of insurance protects against claims legally asserted but does not itself produce liability.” (Citation omitted.)
Cohn v. Heymann 544 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Adams v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford 543 So. 2d 480 La. 1989
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. McNamara 525 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Wilkins v. STATE, DOTD 526 So. 2d 308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
The authority cited by these courts as the rationale for adopting the "interest analysis"
Ark-La-Tex Timber Co. v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 516 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Hanzo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 508 So. 2d 928 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Under the "interest analysis" approach to resolving *931 Louisiana law should be applied when this state has an interest in applying its law and the foreign state has none.
Brown v. DSI Transports, Inc. 496 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
instead of deciding that the law of the state in which the tort occurred would apply, the court concluded that an interest analysis was the more appropriate method of choosing which law applied.
Comeaux v. Pa. General Ins. Co. 490 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
3rd Cir.1983) to uphold its jurisdiction.
Allen v. Allen 484 So. 2d 269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Succession of Cohen 480 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
We recognize that our courts have adopted an interest analysis approach in resolving conflict of law problems
George v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 471 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
which adopted an interest analysis approach to solving choice-of-law problems in tort cases.
Decatur v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. 464 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
We find, , (La.1973), that this case presents a "false conflict of laws question": A false conflict occurs when it is found that only a single state has an interest in the application of its law, and that the other state involved has no interest in the application of its law in the case.
Schueler v. Schueler 460 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Since there is a specific codal provision on the subject, it is unnecessary that we conduct a
Burns v. Holiday Travels, Inc. 459 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
In order to determine which state's law controls the case both sides of this lawsuit agree that we must apply the "interest analysis" and (La.App.
Armstrong v. Land & Marine Applicators, Inc. 463 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
adopted the "interest analysis" theory as the proper approach for resolving choice of law problems in uninsured motorists policies written in other states citing with approval Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, 86 (1969).
Lee v. Ford Motor Co. 457 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Bloodworth v. Carroll 455 So. 2d 1197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
All of these cases rejected the conflicts of law rule that the law applicable to the interpretation of the contract is the law of the state *1207 where the policy was issued and applied the "interest analysis" to find Louisiana law applicable to the interpretation of the U.M.
O'REILLY v. Prat's Travel Agency, Inc. 457 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
[1] This is not a case of "false conflicts of law"
Snider v. Kemper Ins. Co. 448 So. 2d 1383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
In its place, the "interest analysis" was applied.
Wilson v. State Farm Ins. Co. 448 So. 2d 1379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
adopted the "interest analysis" theory as the proper approach for resolving choice of law problems.
Jones v. American Fire-Indem. Ins. Co. 442 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
our supreme court adopted an "interest analysis" as the proper vehicle for resolving conflicts of law problems in this state.
Shaw v. Ferguson 437 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Because of our reliance on Article 3532, in which, in a tort case, our Supreme Court rejected the traditional rule of lex loci delicti and adopted the modern interest analysis for resolving conflicts of law problems.
Crowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 416 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
3 Cir. 1972), affirmed, held, on page 809, that: "The rule of White v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 222 La.
Champion v. Panel Era Mfg. Co. 410 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982