Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Johnson v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 425 So. 2d 224.

56 citing documents.

James Holmes, Sr. and James Holmes, Jr. v. City of Baker School Board and Ace American Insurance Co. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Guidry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 263 So. 3d 943 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Annique Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Co., a decision addressed in the Travelers opinion: Because the employer is entitled to proceed against a “third person” for reimbursement for compensation paid, it is important to ascertain who is a “third person” for these purposes.
Jessie Cole, Et Ux. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Cole v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 149 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Advantage Personnel & Louisiana Safety Ass'n of Timbermen v. Cleave 146 So. 3d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also Travelers Insurance Company, 656 So.2d at 1002 ; Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company
Williams v. Peerless Insurance Co. 123 So. 3d 204 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Hebert v. CLARENDON AMERICAN INS. CO. 984 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Angie Hebert v. Clarendon American Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Co., , a decision addressed in the Travelers opinion: Because the employer is entitled to proceed against a “third person” for reimbursement for compensation paid, it is important to ascertain who is a “third person” for these purposes.
Explained Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 980 So. 2d 654 La. 2008
: The central purpose of both the worker compensation act and the uninsured motorist statute is the protection of the injured person.
Tolbird v. Wyble 892 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 815 So. 2d 1074 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Sunda v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 787 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
In holding that the amendment expanded the definition of “third persons” to include tortfeasors whose negligent action aggravates a pre-existing work injury, the supreme court reaffirmed its prior holding in Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.
Porter v. Fulton 762 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Co., held that a “third person” is anyone legally liable to pay an injured employee’s damages who is not among those persons against whom compensation is the employee’s exclusive remedy.
Deville v. South Central Industries, Inc. 764 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that parties excluded from the category of third persons by reference to LSA-R.S.
Landry v. Martin Mills, Inc. 737 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Leflore v. Coburn 665 So. 2d 1323 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 694 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that parties excluded from the category of third persons by reference to LSA-R.S.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joseph 656 So. 2d 1000 La. 1995
Co., held that a "third person" is anyone legally liable to pay an injured employee's damages who is not among those persons against whom compensation is the employee's exclusive remedy.
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Joseph 649 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in interpreting the above statutory language, held that LSA-jR.S.4 23:1101 defined a third person as anyone who is legally liable to pay an employee damages because of his injury who is not included within the list of classifications provided by LSA-R.S.
Mosley v. Dairyland Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Henson v. Safeco *796 Insurance Companies, (La.
Broussard v. Lewis 614 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
In Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., the Supreme Court discussed the right of a worker’s compensation insurer to intervene in a suit against a UM carrier.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith 609 So. 2d 809 La. 1992
Co., -316 (La.1982) (Calogero, J., concurrence); (La.App.
Egros v. Pempton 606 So. 2d 780 La. 1992
Champagne v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Group 607 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Donaghey v. Cumis Ins. Soc. 600 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies 585 So. 2d 534 La. 1991
Desormeaux v. Lalonde 578 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
Bertrand v. Shelter General Ins. Co. 571 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Townsend v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. 569 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Edwards v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 560 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Co., which cites Hoefly for its holding.
Sharp v. Daigre 555 So. 2d 1361 La. 1990
Schoemann v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 556 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Co., with particular regard to the concurrence of Justice Calogero on pages 230-231.
Rutkowski v. State 550 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
[3] Farnsworth and Harris relied on Hoefly and its progeny, wherein the Supreme Court recognized a solidary relationship between the UM carrier and the uninsured/underinsured motorist.
Sharp v. Daigre 545 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Morvant v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. 538 So. 2d 1107 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Co., : Thus, the object of the uninsured motorist statute is to promote full recovery of damages by innocent automobile accident victims by making uninsured motorist coverage available for their benefit as primary protection when the tortfeasor is without insurance and as additional or excess coverage when he is i
Bauer v. White 532 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Hoefly v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 418 So.
Babineaux v. Domingue 529 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Roger v. Estate of Moulton 513 So. 2d 1126 La. 1987
Collins v. Angelina Cas. Co. 517 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Johnson v. Jackson 504 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Veal v. Dwyer 504 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Giroir v. Theriot 503 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Solice v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 488 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Williams v. Thonn 487 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Perrilloux v. Bowser 483 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its position in Hoefly, supra.
Thomas v. Hanover Ins. Co. 477 So. 2d 1171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
The question of whether a (La.
Harris v. Guitterez 469 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Co., wherein the Supreme Court reaffirmed and somewhat strengthened its position in Hoefly , stating: Although uninsured motorist coverage is provided for the protection of persons injured by uninsured or underinsured tortfeasors, and not for the benefit of such wrongdoers, the statutorily specified coverage gua
Dillard v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 461 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
This question was addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, where the court held that an employer’s worker’s compensation insurer could recover from an employer’s uninsured motorist carrier the amount that an injured employee was entitled to receive because of the fault of the uninsured motorist.
Carona v. State Farm Ins. Co. 458 So. 2d 1275 La. 1984