DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., 343 So. 2d 1000.

77 citing documents.

  • Daneric Anderson v. Kenneth Briggs, Abc Insurance Company, Ports America Louisiana, L.L.C., Xyz Insurance Company, and Jkl Insurance … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
    (quoting Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.
  • South La. Contractors, LLC v. Kraus Construction, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
    See Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Amaleeta O'neal v. Foremost Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    In support, Messina Realty cites Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., and Berry v. Orleans, 01-3283 (La.
  • O'Neal v. Foremost Ins. Co. 265 So. 3d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    In support, Messina Realty cites Polozola v. Garlock, Inc ., and Berry v. Orleans , 01-3283 (La.
  • Daniels v. Int'l Paper Co. 245 So. 3d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    1986) ; Polozola v. Garlock , (La.
  • Charles v. Gervais 156 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Furthermore, specifically addressed this issue.
  • Garland Miller v. Desoto Regional Health System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    10 (quoting Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., ), the court noted: A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own neg
  • Miller v. Desoto Regional Health System 128 So. 3d 649 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    (quoting Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., ), the court noted: A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent act, unless such an intention w
  • Robbie Trahan v. Doerle Food Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    5 It has long been held that “[a] contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent act, unless such an intention was expressed in unequivocal terms.” Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Trahan v. Doerle Food Services, LLC 112 So. 3d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    | fiIt has long been held that “[a] contract of indemnity whereby the indem-nitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent act, unless such an intention was expressed in unequivocal terms.” Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Marseilles Homeowners Condominium Ass'n v. Broadmoor, L.L.C. 111 So. 3d 1099 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    ” (emphasis added); see also Morelia v. Board of Com’rs of Port of New Orleans, 04-0312 (La.App.
  • Babin v. Planet Beach Tanning Salons, Inc. 8 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-3283 (La.5/21/02), .
  • Reggio v. E.T.I. 15 So. 3d 951 La. 2008
    Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-3283 (La.5/21/02), .
  • Moore v. Kenilworth/Kailas Properties 978 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    1986); Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., XXXX-XXXX (La.6/21/02), .
  • Orlando v. E.T.I. 961 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-3283 (La.5/21/02), .
  • Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Government 907 So. 2d 37 La. 2005
  • Morella v. Board of Commissioners 888 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent ac
  • Melba Elaine Jessop v. City of Alexandria La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Quoting from Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., the supreme court in Home Ins.
  • Jessop v. City of Alexandria 871 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
    Quoting from Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., the supreme court in Home Ins.
  • Roundtree v. New Orleans Aviation Board 844 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    : A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent act, unless such an intention is expressed
  • Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 830 So. 2d 283 La. 2002
  • McGill v. Cochran-Sysco Foods 818 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Adams v. Falcon Equipment Corp., supra , citing Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., and Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • LA. HAND & UPPER EXTREMITY INSTITUTE OF INC. v. City of Shreveport 781 So. 2d 695 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
  • Dartez v. Atlas Assurance Co. 746 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 732 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Quoting from Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., the supreme court, in Home Ins.
  • Russell v. City of New Orleans, Department of Property Management 732 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • Adams v. Falcon Equipment Corp. 717 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., (La.
  • Bergeron v. Mar-Con, Inc. 705 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Art.1955; Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Reuter v.. Reuter's Succession,, 206 La.
  • Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • Miller v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 680 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    See Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Fontenot v. Town of Mamou 676 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
  • Coon v. Anadrill/Schlumberger, Ltd. 640 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    Art. 1955; Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.
  • Miller v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 638 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    In Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in a unanimous decree, stated that “...
  • Griffin v. Tenneco Oil Co. 625 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    (emphasis added) [10] MRO cites Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., in support of its assertion that if exemplary damages are not expressly included in an indemnity agreement, they must be found to be excluded.
  • Laper v. BOARD OF COM'RS, PORT OF NEW ORLEANS 617 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • DeWoody v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 595 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • McKinney v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. 590 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    In upholding an indemnity agreement contained in a lease, the court stated: The law as stated in Polozola [ v. Garlock, Inc., ], supra, [(La.1977)], is well-settled.
  • Home Ins. Co. v. National Tea Co. 588 So. 2d 361 La. 1991
    Lessor's subrogated fire insurer, Vigilant, urges, and the court of appeal held, that the lease provisions quoted above are not sufficiently explicit under the rules of construction set forth by this court in Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.
  • Perkins v. J.W. Contractors, Inc. 586 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.
  • Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Harris v. Agrico Chemical Co. 570 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
    In this respect, they contend the language of the agreement must unequivocally express an intent to indemnify Agrico against its sole negligence (as opposed to joint negligence) in order to be legally enforceable, citing Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Liem v. Austin Power, Inc. 569 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.
  • Yocum v. City of Minden 566 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.
  • Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc. 563 So. 2d 258 La. 1990
  • Owens v. US Home, Inc. 552 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The court explained that when there is doubt regarding indemnification against an indemnitee's own negligence liability, there is a presumption that the parties did not intend to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting from his own negligent act citing Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Perkins v. Rubicon Inc. 552 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NOS. 1 THRU 5 laid down the principle to be followed in this case, to wit: A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through
  • Hamilton v. Facility Management of Louisiana, Inc. 545 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Polozola v. Garlock Dunne v. Orleans Parish School, supra; (La.App.
  • Taylor v. Woodpecker Corp. 539 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    Art. 1955; Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Reuter v. Reuter's Succession, 206 La.
  • Doherty v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 536 So. 2d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The Court cited the case of Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., in which the Supreme Court stated: “A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent act, unless s