DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 315 So. 2d 754.

22 citing documents.

  • Garcia v. Certified Lloyds Ins. Co. 598 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Fay v. Willis 577 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Block v. Reliance Ins. Co. 433 So. 2d 1040 La. 1983
    In Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., stacking was allowed for multiple vehicles insured under one family *1043 policy.
  • Breaux v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La.
  • Suhor v. Gusse 403 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
    *95 The decisions in Barbin v. United States F. & G. Co., (La.
  • Hebert v. Breaux 398 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Branch v. O'BRIEN 396 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 261 La.
  • Thibodeaux v. Olivier 394 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    for the proposition that an "anti-stacking" clause in an insurance policy is void as being in derogation of LSA-R.S.
  • 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., and Deane v. McGee, 261 La.
  • Manual v. American Indem. Co. 368 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    686 , (1972); Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company
  • Briley v. Falati 367 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    However, we believe his reliance upon Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Butler v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co. 356 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
  • Anderson v. West 354 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
  • Legendre v. Rodrigue 358 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    was not controlling in this case, the trial court considered *668 the meaning of Act 137 of 1972 and held: "But in now considering this specific point, the 1972 amendment did state that the insurer `shall' also permit and did not use the discretionary `may' also permit.
  • Seaton v. Kelly 339 So. 2d 731 La. 1976
  • Nicholson v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 332 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    In support of their position, Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Ardoin v. Bordelon, *908 (La.App.
  • Posey v. Commercial Union Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    writ refused La., ; writ refused La., (1975); and Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, (La.
  • Seaton v. Kelly 327 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
    because there the automobiles involved were covered by one policy.
  • Raggio v. Volkswagen Insurance Co. 327 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    Barbin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
  • Veal v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Company 325 So. 2d 795 La. 1976
  • Andrews v. Johnson 324 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    22:1406 was reversed by the Supreme Court on June 23, 1975 ( ).
  • Phillips v. Barraza 320 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
    In the case of Barbin v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, La., (1975) the Supreme Court had the occasion to reconsider the cases of Graham and Deane, supra, in the light of the enactment of the 1972 amendments.