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.

  • Petry v. Richard 532 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    Art. 1955; Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Reuter v. Reuter's Succession, 206 La.
  • Pitre v. Ecko Housewares Co., Inc. 521 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Wallace v. Slidell Memorial Hosp. 509 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Robinson v. State through Department of Transportation & Development, (La.App.
  • Lopez v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 495 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Soverign Ins. Co. v. Texas Pipe Line Co. 488 So. 2d 982 La. 1986
  • Simon v. Hooker Chemical Corp. 489 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In any event, we are guided by this language from Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., : “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 u
  • Parrino v. Royal Ins. Co. of America 484 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Dartez v. Dixon 486 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Soverign Ins.
  • Soverign Ins. Co. v. Texas Pipeline Co. 470 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.
  • Muirhead v. Transworld Drilling Co. 469 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    1st Cir. 1983), writ denied, Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Cajun Contractors & Engineers Inc. 459 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    We have compared the provisions of other cases with the contract before us. The case of Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., falls into the first category.
  • Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 444 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.
  • John Bailey Contr. v. St., Dept. of Tr. & Dev. 439 So. 2d 1055 La. 1983
    See also, Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., , (La.1977); Long-Bell Petroleum Col., Inc. v. Tritico, 216 La.
  • Poole v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. 439 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Whittington v. Sowela Technical Institute 438 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In its discussion of that release the court relied upon an intent analysis based on Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., and upheld the release.
  • Reliance Ins. Co. v. Barnard & Burk, Inc. 428 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    The trial court based its judgment on principles enunciated in the case of Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., which construed an indemnity provision in a contract between Dow Chemical Company and National Maintenance Corporation to cover the negligent acts of Dow's employees.
  • Lambert v. Maryland Cas. Co. 418 So. 2d 553 La. 1982
    Art. 1955; Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Reuter v. *560 Reuter's Succession, 206 La.
  • McNeal v. Wyeth-Scott, Inc. 415 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    The law applicable to such an indemnity agreement was set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., 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 act, unless such an intention was exp
  • Pearce v. LJ Earnest, Inc. 411 So. 2d 1276 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    [Citing Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., ] Strictly construing the above indemnity agreement, it becomes clear that the contract terms are insufficient to justify the trial judge's judgment against Safeco.
  • Tirante v. Gulf States Utilities Co. 412 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Bantin v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 411 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    In Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., 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 is own negligent act, unless such
  • Bantin v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. 411 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    In Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., 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 is own negligent act, unless such
  • Harper v. Brown & Root, Inc. 383 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.
  • Daigle v. Lang 377 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    The general rule, recently expressed by the Supreme Court in Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., La., , is 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 act, unless such an intention was ex
  • Polozola v. Garlock, Inc. 376 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
  • Rosales v. Dixie Mill Supply Co., Inc. 376 So. 2d 179 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
    Straley v. Calongne Drayage & S. Inc., La.App., 4 Cir. 1977, ; see also Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., La.1977, .
  • Roberts v. Allied Chemical Corp. 369 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.