Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bearden v. Rucker, 437 So. 2d 1116.

35 citing documents.

Penelope Catzen, Sophia Vorhoff, And Harry Vorhoff v. Tashonty Toney, Esurance Insurance Company, And State Auto Property And … La. 2023
She relies on jurisprudence indicating that the test for residence “is whether the absence of the party of interest from the household of the alleged insured is intended to be permanent or only temporary—i.e., whether there is physical absence coupled with an intent not to return.” Bearden v. Rucker , (La.
Markeeta Tennie v. Farm Bureau Property Insurance Company d/b/a Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company and Kristopher Carter La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2021
Trahan v. Trahan 203 So. 3d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
1 Cir.1982), rev’d in part on other grds., (finding the question of an insured’s ability to pay the amount of a judgment in excess of insurance coverage is a factual question subject to the manifest error standard of review).
CALANCE v. Williams 989 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Smith v. Rocks 957 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Gedward, supra; Jones, supra.
Berryhill v. ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS INC. 925 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Alpaugh ex rel. Alpaugh v. Continental Insurance Co. 776 So. 2d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Meyerex rel. Meyer v. Gulotta 747 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Gedward v. Sonnier 728 So. 2d 1265 La. 1999
Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co. 719 So. 2d 437 La. 1998
Gedward v. Sonnier 713 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
LaFleur v. Dugas 714 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
The test for determining the meaning of "who lives with you," citing Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kimball, 552 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.
Carbon v. Allstate Ins. Co. 701 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Hidalgo v. Boudreaux 693 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
There is no pat formula for interpreting the phrase, “resident of the same household.” Our supreme court emphasized the malleable nature of this phrase’s
Palermo v. Audubon Insurance Co. 689 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Its construction depends on the context and the subject matter and ‘its meaning is to be determined from the facts and circumstances taken together in each particular case.’ ” quoting Mathis v. Employers’ Fire Insurance Company, (Ala.1981).
Chapman v. Poirrier 689 So. 2d 623 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that: The controlling test of whether persons are residents of the same household at a particular time, within the meaning of the policy in question is not solely whether they are then residing together under one roof.
Sambola v. Dwyer 684 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
citing Bond v. Commercial Union Assur.
Mobley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 674 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Prudhomme v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. 671 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Taylor v. Sider 665 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Instead, she advocates the Louisiana Supreme Court’s : [T]he question of whether a spouse is a ‘resident of the same household’ as the spouse named in the policy, in the context of whether the former remains covered under the family automobile policy issued to the named spouse, is not solely dependent upon whether the couple is living under the same roof.
Barker v. Whittington 628 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Strickland v. State Farm Ins. Companies 607 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
STATE FARM MUT. AUTHO. INS. CO. v. Casualty Reciprocal Exch. 600 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Tucker v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. 599 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Miley v. La. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 599 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Haney v. Francewar 588 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [T]he question of whether a spouse is a "resident of the same household" as the spouse named in the policy, in the context of whether the former remains covered under the family automobile policy issued to the named spouse, is not solely dependent upon whether the c
Cain v. Parent 574 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Its construction depends on the context and the subject matter and “its meaning is to be determined from the facts and circumstances taken together in each particular case.” quoting Mathis v. Employers’ Fire Insurance Company, (Ala.1981).
Brown v. Trahan 526 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Clark v. Harris 522 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
Andrade v. Shiers 516 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Jenks v. State 507 So. 2d 877 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
US Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Richardson 486 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Mims v. State Farm Ins. Co. 478 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
Leitz v. Wentzell 461 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the wife was a "resident of the same household" and was a "named insured" covered under the uninsured motorist provision of the policy, even though the couple had been physically separated for over nine months.
Whitaker v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 454 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
4th Cir.1981) in reaching this decision.