Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tiner v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 291 So. 2d 774.

37 citing documents.

KMJ Services, Inc. v. Hood 115 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Co., Duhon v. Mid-American Cas.
Leblanc v. 1555 Poydras Corp. 104 So. 3d 688 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 939 So. 2d 1235 La. 2006
an insurer is bound by the acts and knowledge of its agent in completing an insurance application, and that therefore, Evanston is bound by the clerical error of its agent.
Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 914 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Alex M. Legros v. Great American Insurance Company of New York La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Co., Duhon v. Mid-American Cas.
Legros v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York 865 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., Duhon v. Mid-American Cas.
Deutschmann v. Rosiere 844 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Venable v. US Fire Ins. Co. 829 So. 2d 1179 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Co., See, Smason v. Celtic Life Ins.
McManus v. Southern United Fire Insurance 801 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Co., Duhon v. Mid-American Cas.
McManus v. Southern United Fire Ins. 801 So. 2d 392 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Co., Duhon v. Mid-American Cas.
Fair Grounds Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 742 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Aetna Life Insurance Co., the court identified some of these factors, quoting with approval 3 Couch on Insurance 2d, Section 26:25, pp. 481-82 (1960): [I]f one purporting to act as an agent receives an application, accepts the premium, secures and delivers the policy, and does everything necessary to attachment of the risk, the insu
Hickey v. Centenary Oyster House 690 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Kidd v. Independent Fire Ins. Co. 668 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Tassin v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. 649 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Washington v. Montgomery Ward Life Ins. Co. 640 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Spurrell v. Ivey 630 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Smason v. Celtic Life Ins. Co. 615 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
wherein the Supreme Court found that an agency relationship existed in that case which is factually similar to the instant case.
Self v. Walker Oldsmobile Co., Inc. 614 So. 2d 1371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
: "[T]he clear weight of authority is that statutes regulating licensing and defining agents, brokers, and solicitors are not intended to change or to exclude the general laws of agency: `these regulatory statutes do not prevent the courts from finding that an agency relationship exists in fact, outside
Crayton v. Sentry Ins. Co. 612 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Distinguished Gulf Wide Towing, Inc. v. Associated Ins. Mgrs. 563 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Stewart v. Parrazzo 560 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Wiltz v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 558 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
In disposing of the first issue
Duhon v. Mid-American Cas. Co. 553 So. 2d 1100 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Economy Auto Salvage, (La.
Romero v. Pough 532 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Ford v. Golemi, Albrecht Ins. 522 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Tiner v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, [ (La.
Boyter v. Blazer Const. Co., Inc. 505 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Economy Auto Salvage, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. 499 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Schexnaider v. Rome 485 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
See e.g. Tiner v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, *251 16 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Section 8731, pp. 375-376 (1981).
Thomas v. Lanier 476 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Foster v. American Deposit Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Raymond v. Zeringue 422 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
Batiste v. Security Ins. Group 416 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Under such facts and circumstances, is authority for finding Lacombe to be an agent of Opelousas Underwriters.
Miller v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London 398 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hall v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. 383 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
[1] *76 In support of this contention
Page v. American Motorist Ins. Co., Ltd. 381 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
CC Art. 3016, 3017; Uhlich v. Medallion Realty, Inc., (La.App.
Ackel v. Mid-South Underwriters, Inc. 377 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Sorapuru v. Jeffers 378 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
the Supreme Court noted a principle relevant to this case and that is that an insurer broker, under certain factual circumstances, can act as an agent for an insurance company.