DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Courville v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 703.

35 citing documents.

  • Gray v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 764 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Troha v. State Farm Ins. Co. 606 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    4th Cir. 1983), writ denied, :
  • Fay v. Willis 577 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    as establishing the general rule that an insured who has insurance available under more than one UM policy may not cumulate, or stack the policies or coverages.
  • Guilbeau v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 549 So. 2d 1250 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Vincent v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 526 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Wyatt v. Robin 518 So. 2d 494 La. 1988
  • Salter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 520 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Wyatt v. Robin 509 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    Co., Cole v. State Farm Mut.
  • Gilbert v. Waddell 501 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
  • Worsham v. Walker 498 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • Mouton v. Guillory 494 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Dobson v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 484 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Szwedt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 479 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Decatur v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. 464 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    and Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
  • Bishop v. Shelter Ins. Co. 461 So. 2d 1170 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    3d Cir.1980), reversed in part, the opinion states if insurance policies are introduced as evidence they may be exhibited to the jury.
  • Taylor v. Tanner 442 So. 2d 435 La. 1983
    Co., and Nall v. State Farm Mut.
  • Sentilles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 443 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Coliseum House, Inc. v. Brock 442 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
    Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Fontenot v. State Farm Mutual Ins.
  • Duhe v. Maryland Cas. Co. 434 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Co., "the first paragraph of the Act provides the general rule that an insured who has insurance available to him under more than one uninsured motorist policy *1197 may not stack, ..."
  • Clement v. Continental Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Co., "the first paragraph of the Act provides the general rule that an insured who has insurance available to him under more than one uninsured motorist policy may not stack, ..."
  • Lindley v. Cardwell 430 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Pinder 428 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    considered a case in which a son residing with his father was insured while the son was driving one of his father’s two insured vehicles.
  • Cole v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 427 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    22:1406(D)(1)(c) provides an exception to the statutory prohibition against the stacking of U/M in support of their argument.
  • Taylor v. Tanner 422 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the above cited statutory provision, finding that the first paragraph of the statute prohibits stacking of uninsured motorist coverage but, an injured party may stack uninsured motorist coverages available to him if he can bring himself into the well-defined exception
  • Hudson v. Thompson 422 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
  • Moreau v. Sanders 415 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    Co., Fontenot v. State Farm Mutual Ins.
  • Bonner v. Robinson 415 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Faria v. Smoak 416 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    Co., impliedly supported this view; —that the Insurance Code prohibited provisions in policies that were inconsistent with or contradictory to the Code and any language in the policy denying stacking before Act 623 of 1977 should be considered as not written; —that the insured contracted before Act 623 of 1977
  • Breaux v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. 413 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • Hubbard v. Milner 408 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
  • Nall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 406 So. 2d 216 La. 1981
  • Hebert v. Breaux 398 So. 2d 1299 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    Although not the precise issue before the Court, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Courville v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, et al., painstakingly indicated an adherence to the general rule that insurance policies shall be interpreted in light of the law existing at the time of issuance of said policies not as of the time of the accident as defendant herein suggests.
  • Nall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 398 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    The Supreme Court granted writs and reversed, , rendered January 26, 1981.
  • Branch v. O'BRIEN 396 So. 2d 1372 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
    However, the Supreme Court in Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., held: "...