Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 340 So. 2d 293.

31 citing documents.

Barbara Miguez v. Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Co., (Tate, Justice, concurring).
Miguez v. Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc. 926 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Co., (Tate, Justice, concurring).
Hickey v. Centenary Oyster House 690 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Co., Young v. Brown, 27,018 (La.App.
Langston v. Shirley 682 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Mahaffey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Manuel v. La. Sheriff's Risk Mgmt. Fund 664 So. 2d 81 La. 1995
7/5/94), (Ortique, J., dissenting); (1992) (Hall, J., concurring); and Lou-Con v. Gulf Building Services, Inc., (La.App.
Young v. Brown 658 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Co., West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La.
Panzico v. Price 658 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
American Home Assurance Co., supra
Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Norton v. Lewis 623 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
Perkins v. McDow 615 So. 2d 312 La. 1993
Lindsey v. Colonial Lloyd's Ins. Co. 595 So. 2d 606 La. 1992
White v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 569 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Co., West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La.
Garner v. Law 560 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
King v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 549 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Philyaw v. Mid-American Indemnity Co. 548 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Fontana v. Foster 547 So. 2d 1328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Cook v. Rice 534 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Petry v. Richard 532 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Southern v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 496 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
the Supreme Court, faced with the same issue of whether a second permittee had permission to drive the named insured’s automobile, stated: “In American Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
Malmay v. Sizemore 493 So. 2d 620 La. 1986
the courts have generally determined the issue of implied permission (at least in cases in which there was no specific prohibition by the named insured against letting others drive the vehicle) by inquiring whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the first permittee would allow others to operate the auto
Solice v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Campbell v. Continental-Emsco Co. 445 So. 2d 70 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Carey v. Ory 421 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
See also Cousin v. Page, 372 * at page 1236
Butler v. Pardue 415 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
the owner knew or should have known that his express permittee would allow others to use his vehicle, thus insurance coverage is extended to the second party driver of the vehicle.
Boudreaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 385 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Co., the Supreme Court found certain specific circumstances in which a permittee driver can give permission to a second permittee.
Sonnier Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 377 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Cousin v. Page 372 So. 2d 1231 La. 1979
Cousin v. Page 367 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Washington v. Dixie Leas. of New Orleans, Inc. 352 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Co., to support this proposition.
Morgan v. Matlack, Inc. 342 So. 2d 167 La. 1977
American Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki, 255 La.