Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Senac v. Sandefer, 418 So. 2d 543.

34 citing documents.

Lsat v. Louisiana Insur. Guar. Ass'n 998 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Hadley v. CENTEX LANDIS CONST. CO., INC. 990 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
608 So.2d at 1004 , Hickerson v. Protective National Ins.
Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 827 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Morris v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board 826 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Mitchell v. Abernathy 815 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Taylor v. Sauls 772 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
stated: The purpose of this provision is to prevent double recovery.
Alerion Bank v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 753 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Lavan v. Nowell 702 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
to claimants and policyholders because of the insolvency of an insurer.” The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that LIGA’s provisions “must be interpreted to protect claimants and policyholders and to advance their interests rather than the interests of the association.”
Haley v. Glenn McClendon Trucking Co. 696 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
Jackson v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. 676 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Lavan v. Nowell 676 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Martinez v. Magnolia Fire & Casualty Co. 650 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
HOUSTON GENERAL v. Commercial Union 649 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Mancuso v. Siegel 646 So. 2d 1200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Senac vs. Sandefer, , (La.1982).
Guarisco v. Haskins 640 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that, to effect this purpose, the provisions of the LIGA statute ‘ “must be interpreted to protect claimants and policyholders and to advance their interests rather than the interests of the association.” ’
Richard v. Teague 636 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
LOUISIANA INS. GUAR. ASS'N v. Gegenheimer 636 So. 2d 209 La. 1994
Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Gegenheimer 636 So. 2d 209 La. 1994
Guatanty Ass’n, (on rehearing)
International Matex Tank Terminals v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n 633 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
In fact, the Supreme Court, declared that “[t]he provisions of the Insurance Guaranty Association Act must be interpreted to protect claimants and policyholders and to advance their interests rather, than the interests of the association.” Under this statutory scheme, Early American was a “member insurer” by virtue of its *714 en
Cline v. Pacific Marine Ins. Co. 619 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Borchardt v. Carline 617 So. 2d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Henderson v. Pacific Marine Ins. Co. 611 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Lastie v. Warden 611 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith 609 So. 2d 809 La. 1992
Similarly, Justice Dennis, writing for the majority, reversed the Third Circuit's finding that compensation payments are in lieu of both lost wages and damages for pain and suffering, and held that "a double recovery, in the contemplation of [pre-amendment] La.R.S.
Bowens v. General Motors Corp. 608 So. 2d 999 La. 1992
Hickerson v. Protective National Ins.
McMahon v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 604 So. 2d 970 La. 1992
McMahon v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 596 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Younce v. Loudrake 580 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Younce argues that the statute requires a liberal interpretation, “to protect claimants and policy holders and to advance their interest rather than the interest of the Association.”
Cooper v. Huddy 581 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
1980); and worker's compensation benefits
Weaver v. Kitchens 556 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
Backhus v. Transit Cas. Co. 549 So. 2d 283 La. 1989
Nasello v. Transit Cas. Co. 530 So. 2d 1114 La. 1988
H & H Sewer Systems, (La.App.
Brooks v. Chicola 514 So. 2d 7 La. 1987
[9] a case with a similar issue, but which was decided under the Insurance Guarantee Association Law, La.R.S.
Boudreaux v. Leblanc Welding & Construction, Inc. 515 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
As recent as 1982, the Louisiana Supreme Court succinctly stated, “[t]he provisions of the Insurance Guaranty Association Act must be interpreted to protect claimants and policyholders and to advance their interests rather than the interests of the association.” (La.