Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Savoie v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 347 So. 2d 188.

34 citing documents.

Smith v. Moreau 222 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
2/3/17), -97 (per curiam); Savoie v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, (La.
Ralph Coleman v. Gregory Landry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Irwin v. Rubens 75 So. 3d 952 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Co., Donovan v. Standard Oil Co., 197 So.
Davis v. Green 5 So. 3d 291 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Co., Woolard v. Atkinson, 32,322 (La.App.
LeCroy v. Interim Health Care Staffing 980 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Co., Clinton v. Reigel By-Products, Inc., 42,497 (La.App.
Clinton v. Reigel By-Products, Inc. 965 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Waring v. Travelers Insurance Co. 891 So. 2d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Savoie v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., Remet v. Martin, 97-0895 (La.App.
Pender v. Elmore 855 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Hughes v. Goodreau 836 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Cassey v. Stewart 727 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Regarding the determination of whether an individual is an employee, the court stated that the word "employee" is one used in common parlance and readily understood by men of ordinary intelligence.
Peterson v. Schimek 715 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
1991), stated: “It is well settled in our law that general rules of interpretation apply to insurance policies in the same way that they apply to other contracts.” Savoie v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company
Remet v. Martin 705 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Graham Resources v. Lexington Ins. 625 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Berry v. STATE THROUGH DHHR 625 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Avery v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs 591 So. 2d 342 La. 1991
Glover v. DIVING SERVICES INTERN. 577 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Wells v. State ex rel. Military Department 524 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Weems v. Hickman 524 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Sparks v. Progressive American Ins. Co. 517 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc. 482 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Harvey v. Travelers Ins. Companies 487 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Dartez v. Dixon 486 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Sampay v. Morton Salt Co. 482 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hinton v. Western Cas. and Sur. Co. 435 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Cupit v. Grant 425 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Co., the court stated: "In determining whether an employment relationship exists in other contexts, the jurisprudence of this state has uniformly held that the most important element to be considered is the right of control and supervision over an individual.
Butler v. Atwood 420 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Co., Donovan v. Standard Oil Co., 197 So.
Adams v. Times-Picayune Pub. Corp. 418 So. 2d 685 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Co., Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Company, 262 La.
Employers Insurance of Wausau v. I.D.S.O. Investments, Inc. 410 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
Martinez v. Reynolds 398 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
Johnson v. Maricle 386 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
2 Cir. 1979), writs denied, Savoie v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., Gaspard v. Travelers Ins.
Johnson v. Maricle 386 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
2 Cir. 1979), writs denied, Gaspard v. Travelers Ins.
Hryhorchuk v. Smith 379 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
our Supreme Court set forth succinctly the criteria for the finding of an employee-employer relationship.
Badeaux v. East Jefferson Gen. Hospital 364 So. 2d 1348 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
an important element to be considered in determining whether an employment relationship exists, is the control and supervision exercised.