Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 575.

225 citing documents.

Copeland Enterprises, Inc. v. Slidell Memorial Hosp. 657 So. 2d 1292 La. 1995
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joseph 656 So. 2d 1000 La. 1995
Co., Tugwell v. State Farm Ins.
Cantrelle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 654 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Futch v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 654 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Vedros v. Public Grain Elevator of N.O., Inc. 654 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Retying on Narcise, supra, the court reasoned: “Narcise pointed out that differing sources of liability ‘[do] not preclude an in solido obligation to the extent that each is liable for certain damages sustained by plaintiff, (citations omitted) Narcise echoed Hoefly [ ] when it stated ‘[i]t is the co-extensiveness of the obligations for the same debt, and not the source of liability, that determines the solidarity of the obligation.’ ” Id.
Rizer v. American Surety & Fidelity Ins. Co. 654 So. 2d 748 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Esponge v. City of New Orleans 650 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Naquin v. Teer 649 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Jarreau v. Hirschey 650 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Martin v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. 638 So. 2d 1067 La. 1994
Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Regional Hospital 638 So. 2d 643 La. 1994
Washington v. Savoie 634 So. 2d 1176 La. 1994
Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Hosp. 634 So. 2d 331 La. 1994
Fontenot v. FARM BUREAU INS. COMPANIES 629 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Ridenour v. Wausau Ins. Co. 627 So. 2d 141 La. 1993
Co., we found that the UM insurer was solidarily liable with the tortfeasor.
Steptoe v. Lallie Kemp Regional Hospital 618 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Hebert v. Liner 620 So. 2d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Mosley v. Dairyland Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Jones v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
The tortfeasor and the plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier are solidary obligors with respect to the victim, and the uninsured motorist carrier may be sued in the parish of the plaintiff's domicile as provided in La.C.C.P.
Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of NO 611 So. 2d 1383 La. 1993
this court held that an uninsured motorist carrier was solidarily liable with a third party tort-feasor so suit against one would interrupt prescription against the other.
Tallman v. Champion Insurance Co. 611 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. 609 So. 2d 195 La. 1992
Saffel v. US Indem. Assur. Group, Inc. 609 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Egros v. Pempton 606 So. 2d 780 La. 1992
Co., Bond v. Commercial Union Assur.
Washington v. Savoie 607 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Hull v. Louisiana Indem. 606 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Troha v. State Farm Ins. Co. 606 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Galliano v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. 606 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Davis v. Brock 602 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Donaghey v. Cumis Ins. Soc. 600 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Williams v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans 597 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Co., our Supreme Court held that the obligation by an uninsured motorist insurer and the negligent tortfeasor was in solido because they were both obliged to repair the damage sustained by the innocent automobile accident victim irrespective of the source of their obligations.
James v. Holmes 590 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Egros v. Pempton 588 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Haynes v. Shumake 582 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Quittem v. National Car Rental Systems 582 So. 2d 1337 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Taylor v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 579 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
La.Civ.Code art. 1794; La.Civ.Code art. 2091 (1870)
Mitchell v. Pablovich 578 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
In the trial court and here, in support of her contention.
Hubert v. Martin 572 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Co., and Jones v. American Fire-Indemnity Ins.
Bertrand v. Shelter General Ins. Co. 571 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Uhrich v. National Fire Ins. Co. 569 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Sharp v. Daigre 564 So. 2d 303 La. 1990
Co., Booth v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.
Taylor v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 566 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Since Liberty and the alleged tort-feasor are solidary obligors ( and since prescription is interrupted by the timely commencement of a suit (La.C.C.
McLemore v. Fox 565 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Edwards v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 560 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Co., the relationship between the solidary obligors differs.
Schwoch v. Sutor 559 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Great SW Fire Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Companies 557 So. 2d 966 La. 1990
Sharp v. Daigre 555 So. 2d 1361 La. 1990
Theriot v. Bergeron 552 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Comberrel v. Basford 550 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Co., was whether or not a UM insurer was solidarily liable with a tortfeasor for the purpose of interrupting prescription.
Rutkowski v. State 550 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court examined the issue of whether a UM insurer and an uninsured motorist tortfeasor were solidarily bound to repair the damage to the UM carrier's insuredthe tort victim.