DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carona v. State Farm Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 1275.

46 citing documents.

  • Bernard v. Ellis 76 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
  • Silva v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 38 So. 3d 934 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Hines v. Smith 16 So. 3d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Co., Kelly v. Owens, 29,613 (La.App.2d Cir.8/20/97), , writ denied, 97-2311 (La.12/12/97), .
  • Marie Denise Gaspard v. Allstate Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Gaspard v. Allstate Ins. Co. 903 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Hebert v. ANCO Insulation, Inc. 835 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • Gaubert v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. 770 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • Sutton v. Oncale 765 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a personal injury claimant, who failed to expressly reserve his rights to proceed against his UM/UIM carrier pursuant to former LSA-C.C.
  • In Re Tutorship of Witt 747 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Chabaud v. Sylvester 722 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    Co., our Supreme Court held that when an automobile accident victim settles with his tortfeasor his claim against his UM insurer is not discharged merely because he does not expressly reserve his right against the latter in accordance with Civil Code article 2203.
  • Kelly v. Owens 698 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Roberts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 662 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Martin v. Champion Ins. Co. 656 So. 2d 991 La. 1995
    In affirming the judgment of the trial court on rehearing, and La.Civ.Code art. 1803, "the trial court did not err in holding State Farm liable for the payment of judicial interest on the $10,000.00 paid to the plaintiff by the tortfeasor's insurer."
  • Fascio v. Lee 650 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Rather than confront Duet , (La.
  • Martin v. Champion Insurance Co. 649 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Hackman v. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co. 629 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    Farm Bureau contends that Hackman's claims against it were released when she settled her claim against the tortfeasor and his insurer, USF & the Court held that when an auto accident victim settles with his tortfeasor, his claim against his UM carrier is not discharged merely because he does not expressly reserve his rights against his UM carrier.
  • Duet v. Lucky 621 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    and Boudreaux *171 v. Government Employees Insurance, (1st Cir.1984).
  • Thibodeaux v. Champion Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • Egros v. Pempton 606 So. 2d 780 La. 1992
  • Pinkney v. Progressive Specialty Ins. 597 So. 2d 1168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • Egros v. Pempton 588 So. 2d 1139 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Francis v. Travelers Ins. Co. 581 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Ewing v. Aubert 566 So. 2d 616 La. 1990
  • Succession of Bertaut 572 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Smith v. Anderson 563 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Durbin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 558 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Rutkowski v. State 550 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    Subsequently, the court reversed five consolidated cases in which lower courts dismissed claims against UM carriers where UM insureds had settled with uninsured or underinsured tortfeasors without expressly reserving rights against the UM insurers.
  • Sharp v. Daigre 545 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Babineaux v. Domingue 529 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
    (Blanche, J., concurring in the Carona result only).
  • Givens v. Prof. Nurses Home Health Serv. 516 So. 2d 120 La. 1987
  • Cates v. Wausau Ins. Co. 508 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • Keller v. Amedeo 501 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    (Citations omitted) (La.App.
  • Cooper v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. 481 So. 2d 611 La. 1986
    has also decided that the injured insured's release of a tortfeasor without reservation of rights against the UM carrier does not release the UM carrier.
  • Frazier v. Freeman 481 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Sharp v. Allstate Insurance Co. 479 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    5th Cir.1983), rev’d and rem’d
  • Chatman v. Mid America Indem. Co. 479 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    however, which was decided subsequent to the trial of the instant matter, compels the opposite result.
  • Weber v. Charity Hosp. of Louisiana 475 So. 2d 1047 La. 1985
  • Migliore v. Traina 474 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Co., in which the court held that when an automobile accident victim settles with his tort-feasor, his claim against his uninsured motorist insurer is not discharged merely because he does not expressly reserve his right against the latter: "The rule of Civil Code article 2203 (1870), according to which an oblig
  • Jordan v. Sweeney 467 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Soon after, by citing criticism of La.Civ.Code art. 2203 and reiterating the policy supporting the enactment of La.R.S.
  • Westbrook v. Prince 465 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    But the Supreme Court of Louisiana has resolved this issue in the very recent (handed down after the present appeal had been argued and submitted) (1984) (rehearing denied January 4, 1985).
  • Kestler v. Mid-American Indemnity Co. 464 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Since the plaintiff’s brief was filed, and in light of that decision, we reverse the decision below.
  • Fertitta v. Allstate Ins. Co. 462 So. 2d 159 La. 1985
  • Buras v. Carte 463 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Roche v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., ; Dalmado v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., ; Canci-enne v. Saaverdra, et al., ; (1984).
  • Cadierre v. Duet 461 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Co., (1984), which held that “when an automobile accident victim settles with his tortfeasor his claim against his UM insurer is not discharged merely because he does not expressly reserve his right against the latter in accordance with Civil Code article 2203”.
  • Knight v. Soilemisis 461 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    0287, Paul Roche v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., No. 84-C-0279, Anthony J. Dalmado, Jr. v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., No. 84-C-0234, Lois E. Halter, wife of and Claude Cancienne v. Rodrigo M. Saaverda, The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York and State Farm Insurance Company, No. 82-C-0274, and Mary H. Decedue, wife of/and Charles Decedue v. *424 Government Employees Insurance Company, (La.
  • Dillard v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 461 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
    Art. 1803 (effective January 1, 1985), which provides that a “compromise between an obligee and one obligor, benefits the other solidary obligors in the amount of the portion of that obligor.” Likewise, the Supreme Court recently held that an injured plaintiff’s settlement with a tort-feasor does not discharge plaintiff’s claim against his own uninsured motorist insurer, even absent an express reservation of his rights against the insurer.