Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ray v. Associated Indem. Corp., 373 So. 2d 166.

17 citing documents.

Contreras v. Vesper 214 So. 3d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Ward v. Usagencies Casualty Insurance 130 So. 3d 1029 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Corp., the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the issue of policy renewal and the insurer’s obligations under the Statute.
Nolan v. Mabray 51 So. 3d 665 La. 2010
Corp., this Court interpreted La.
Collins v. State Farm Ins. Co. 997 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Corp., 63796 (La.6/25/79), -70 ; Glynn v. Diamond State Ins., 03-0029 (La.App.
Cate Street Investments, L.L.C. v. American Central Insurance Co. 897 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Williams v. Storms 835 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Jacobs v. Louisiana Indem. Ins. Co. 692 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Corp., the supreme court explained this statute as follows: Section E requires an insurer to renew a policy unless it mails or delivers timely notice of its intention not to renew.
Dauzat v. Gem Underwriters, Inc. 602 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
However, the insurer is not required to renew a policy or to give notice of its intention not to renew if it has “manifested its willingness to renew.” This exception to the requirements of Section E
Cole v. Lavine 595 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
The Supreme Court, described the applicability of Section E as follows: Section E requires an insurer to renew a policy unless it mails or delivers timely notice of its intention not to renew.
Neely v. Hollywood Marine, Inc. 530 So. 2d 1116 La. 1988
Taylor v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Bartlett v. Calhoun, 430 So.2d *1124 1358 (La.App.
Soileau v. Louisiana Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co. 476 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Reliance Insurance Co. v. Department of Transportation & Development, Office of Highways 471 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
*255 the Supreme Court stated the familiar principle that: ...
Gaudet v. Crochet 448 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment contending that its policy had expired because it had mailed the insured a premium renewal notice but had not received payment.
Ledbetter v. Myers 438 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Corp., : It is well settled in our jurisprudence that a motion for summary judgment should be granted if, and only if, the pleadings and related filings show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Credithrift of America, Inc. v. Williams 426 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Rosenburg v. Carr 422 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by