Hurston v. Dufour
Hurston v. Dufour, 295 So. 2d 178 (La. 1974).
Cited by
- STATE DOTD v. Unknown Owners 661 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
- Mahlum v. Baker 639 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
- Reason v. Miller's Casualty Insurance 615 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
- Finkelstein v. Barthelemy 565 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Laughlin v. Breaux 515 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Hebert v. Weaver 484 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- Pierron v. Lirette 468 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
- Pizzo v. Graves 453 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
- Jones v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. 410 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
- Lucas v. Deville 385 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
- Johns v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 349 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
- Frazier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Opinion text
295 So.2d 178 (1974) Morton C. HURSTON et ux. v. Henry E. DUFOUR, III, et al. Frederick J. HEBERT, Individually, et al. v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO., et al. No. 54822. Supreme Court of Louisiana. June 7, 1974. Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment complained of. BARHAM, DIXON, and CALOGERO, JJ., are of the opinion the application should be granted. The Court of Appeal's construction of the exclusionary clause to personal liability under Aetna's Homeowner's Policy is erroneous. The exclusion is only for the insured's "ownership, maintenance, operation, use ...." of an automobile away from the premises. The coverage of insured for "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages" is modified by the exclusion clause only for her acts. There is no exclusion of her liabilities for acts of others in connection with their ownership or use of automobile away from the premises. The Court of Appeal reads " liability arising from " to the exclusionary clause. The contract should be construed favorable to the insured.