Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Southern American Ins. Co. v. Dobson, 441 So. 2d 1185.

27 citing documents.

Darius Troy Barras and Julie A. Barras v. Cardinal Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
(on rehearing) (quoting La.R.S.
Lonny Hayes v. Viviana Trevino De Barton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
e in 6 O‟Neal‟s general liability umbrella policy limits from $2 million to $3 million did not require a new UM waiver for the commercial auto policy because it is a “General Liability policy that sits over multiple risks[;] it is not a motor vehicle policy.” Penn Millers‟ (on rehearing).
Hayes v. De Barton 211 So. 3d 1275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Penn Millers contends that the 2009 increase in |70’Neal’s general liability umbrella policy limits from $2 million to $3 million did not require a new UM waiver for the commercial auto policy because it is a “General Liability policy that sits over multiple risks[;] it is not a motor vehicle policy.” Penn Millers’ (on rehearing).
Draayer v. Allen 195 So. 3d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(on rehearing); Tugwell v. State Farm Ins.
Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 914 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Walker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 850 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
the Louisiana Supreme Court considered that the language found in the uninsured motorist statute made it apply to insurance "covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle."
Gentry v. Meade 767 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
(on rehearing), then it must be understood that the insured will receive those benefits.
Moyles v. Cruz 682 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that commercial excess/umbrella liability policies were governed by the requirements of the UM statute, La.
Tijerina v. Stawecki 670 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Wallace v. Weavers Underwriting Agency 633 So. 2d 857 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
v. Dobson, the Supreme Court, on rehearing, held that excess policies which cover "liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle" are automobile liability policies for purposes of LSA-R.S.
Futch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 625 So. 2d 1019 La. 1994
Mosley v. Dairyland Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. 609 So. 2d 195 La. 1992
[6] Applicability to Umbrella Policies On November 4, 1983 this court found on rehearing that the UM statute, LA.REV.
Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co. 597 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Bays v. Estate of Zeringue 584 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
v. Dobson, found that umbrella policies which provide automobile liability coverage are governed by LSA-R.S.
Barnes v. Thames 578 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
However, since there was no valid waiver of such coverage, (La.
Uhrich v. National Fire Ins. Co. 569 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Futch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 568 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Jones v. Henry 542 So. 2d 507 La. 1989
Booth v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 253 La.
Lee v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 540 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
However, on rehearing, that the mandatory directive of La.R.S.
Hebert v. Williams 526 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
The failure of Southern Pacific to validly reject or amend the coverage, conforms the International Surplus policy to LSA-R.S.
Washam v. Chancellor 507 So. 2d 806 La. 1987
Mohr v. Lloyds of London 503 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
v. Dobson, in support of her position.
Washam v. Chancellor 498 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
on rehearing, held that the statute applies to “commercial umbrella” and “excess umbrella” policies where the policies cover liability arising from the ownership, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle.
Dobson v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. 484 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Tapia v. Ham 480 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Capone v. King 467 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985