DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Company, 292 So. 2d 190.

63 citing documents.

  • Superior Steel, Inc. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp. 415 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Rozas v. La. Hospital Service, Inc. 413 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Dee v. Republic Petroleum Corp. 413 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
    Appellees cite Oceanonics, which also considered an "occurrence policy" and the court held that coverage was excluded because the accident happened after the policy had expired.
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Avant 404 So. 2d 1311 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    The exclusionary clauses here involved were properly interpreted in Oceanonics, affirmed (La.App.
  • Levine v. National Life and Acc. Ins. Co. 389 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
  • Lopez v. Blue Cross of Louisiana 386 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Benton Casing Service, Inc. v. Avemco Ins. Co. 379 So. 2d 225 La. 1979
    Oceanonics, Muse v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
  • Stacy v. Petty 362 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    Oceanonics, Fontenot v. New York Life Insurance Co., supra.
  • Tabb v. Louisiana Health Services & Indem. Co. 352 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
    In the case of Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Co., La., (1974), the Louisiana Supreme Court was confronted with a general liability insurance policy in which a provision similar to Article XI(d) in this case was included.
  • Templet v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. 341 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    3rd Cir. 1973), affirmed
  • Thomas v. Appalachian Ins. Co. 335 So. 2d 789 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    3rd Cir. 1973), affirmed, La., (1974); Employers Commercial Union Ins.
  • Taillac v. Westminster Corp. 320 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    ent, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured;” (emphasis ours) Under the policy’s schedule of hazards covered “Completed Operations” is specifically “Excluded.” Plaintiff attempts to avoid the effect of Oceanonics, aff’g but we find the cited case to be controlling and dispositive of his appeal.
  • Home Insurance Co. v. Doe 321 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    However, on rehearing, the trial judge recalled his original opinion and decided that this case is controlled by Oceanonics, Inc. v. Petroleum Distributing Company, La., (1974) wherein it is pointed out that after Kendrick v. Mason, the language of 'the completed operations exclusion was changed so as to meet the objections set forth in Kendrick.