Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 406 So. 2d 216.

52 citing documents.

Marguerite C. Slattery v. Ashley N. Holdsworth La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
McGee v. Allstate Ins. Co. 259 So. 3d 1161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
Forvendel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 230 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Nelson v. Robinson 10 So. 3d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
when the supreme court again validated policy language that precluded a plaintiff from recovering under the policy’s UM coverage because the host driver’s vehicle was “an insured vehicle” under the liability portion of the policy.
Irving Ceasar v. Sheriff Sid Hebert La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Co., Insurance Co. of N. Am.
Ceasar v. Hebert 941 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Michelle A. Egle v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Egle v. Allstate Insurance Co. 889 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
27:1406(D)(1)(C) and Nall v. State Farm Mutual Autombile In *415 surance Co.
Lang v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co. 783 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
3 Cir.1982), where this court stated the following: In our opinion, (La.
Livas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 797 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Gray v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. 764 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Boullt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 752 So. 2d 739 La. 1999
Co., see also Wyatt, 518 So.2d at 495 .
Johnson v. Davis 697 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Insurance Co. of North America v. Patton 665 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Schwankhart v. DEPT. of TRANSP. & DEV. 646 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Fontenot v. FARM BUREAU INS. COMPANIES 629 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Bell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 620 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Sheppard v. State Farm Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Saffel v. US Indem. Assur. Group, Inc. 609 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Senegal v. Faul 598 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Cannon v. Allstate Ins. Co. 595 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Breaux holding.
American States Ins. Co. v. Roark 583 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Co., , 219 n. 5 (La.1981).
Bonstill v. Avant 576 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Gardner v. Allstate Ins. Co. 575 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Leboeuf v. Lloyd's of Louisiana 572 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Debarbieris v. Brown 545 So. 2d 975 La. 1989
Co., wherein we held that the referenced statutory provision prohibited the plaintiff from recovering under more than one U.M.
Hasha v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 539 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Puckett v. Hertz Corp. 535 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Co., Breaux v. Government Emp.
Jones v. Henry 533 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Bustamante v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 528 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Vincent v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 526 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Later that same year, the Supreme Court set forth three conditions which must be present for the exception permitting stacking to apply: (1) the injured party must have been occupying an automobile not owned by him; (2) there must be UM coverage on the occupied vehicle, which coverage is primary; and, (3) there must be at least
Pardue v. Dean 515 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Belaire v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 510 So. 2d 1325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Johnson v. Jackson 504 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Worsham v. Walker 498 So. 2d 260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Solice v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Co., Breaux v. Government Emp.
Szwedt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 479 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Miller v. Duthu 470 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
a guest passenger was injured in a two car collision caused solely by the negligence of the host driver.
Lebaron v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 465 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Plaisance v. Epherson 466 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Co., Breaux v. Government Emp.
Rodrigue v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 461 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Co., construed Act 623 and made clear that three conditions must exist in order for LSA-R.S.
Moore v. Brumfield 459 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Co., Breaux v. Government Emp.
Rigby v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 452 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
In no instance shall more than one coverage from more than one uninsured motorist policy be available as excess over and above the primary coverage available to the injured occupant.” answers the question presented.
Taylor v. Tanner 442 So. 2d 435 La. 1983
Co., we noted that the subsection states the general rule that the "limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall not be increased" because an insured has insurance available to him under more than one uninsured motorist provision or policy.
Duhe v. Maryland Cas. Co. 434 So. 2d 1193 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Clement v. Continental Ins. Co. 430 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Pinder 428 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Hoffpauir v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 427 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
held that the terms of an automobile insurance policy excluding coverage under both the liability and U/M provisions of the policy are valid, and are not in derogation of the mandatory requirements set forth in the uninsured motorist statute.
Taylor v. Tanner 422 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
when: (1) the injured party is occupying an automobile not owned by him; (2) the U/M coverage on the vehicle in which the injured party was an occupant is primary; and (3) should that primary U/M coverage be exhausted due to the extent of damages, then the injured occupant may recover as excess from other U/M coverage available to him.”
Shipp v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 415 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
In our opinion, (La.App.