Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McDill v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1085.

144 citing documents.

Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indem. Co. 999 So. 2d 1104 La. 2008
Demma v. Automobile Club 998 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
[3] see also Mallett v. McNeal, 05-2289, p. 8 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d at 1254, 1259.
Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 988 So. 2d 186 La. 2008
Co., in which we held that an insurer was liable for statutory penalties even though the insurer's first notice of the claim was the filing of suit almost a year after the accident occurred.
RELLE v. Mayfield 978 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Talton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. 981 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. AUDUBON INDEM. 975 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
A which dealt with a claim against an uninsured/underinsured motorist liability insurer.
Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indemnity Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
A which dealt with a claim 3 against an uninsured/underinsured motorist liability insurer.
Boudreaux v. SIMONEAUD GROCERY & MARKET 972 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Darryl Boudreaux v. Simoneaud Grocery & Market, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
An unconditional tender is made to a plaintiff “not in settlement of the case, but to show [the insurer’s] good faith in the matter and to comply with the duties imposed upon them under their contract of insurance with the insured.” -92 (La.1985).
Finley v. "ABC" Insurance Co. 946 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Co., *334 03-0107 (La.10/21/03)
Mallett v. McNeal 939 So. 2d 1254 La. 2006
Clark , 00-3010, p. 18, 785 So.2d at 791 (-92 (La.1985)).
Geraci v. Byrne 934 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Co., Hackman v. S. Farm Bureau Ins.
Combetta v. Ordoyne 934 So. 2d 836 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Co., -92 (La.1985); Ibrahim , 02-0350 at pp. 4-5, 845 So.2d at 477 .
Young v. Gremillion 924 So. 2d 1285 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
NOTES [1] An unconditional tender of policy benefits upon satisfactory proof of loss by the insurer to its insured is commonly referred to as a McDill tender
Boudreaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 896 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Co., the seminal case on this issue, the Supreme Court defined a satisfactory proof of loss in the context of a UM coverage claim.
Bell v. Kreider 890 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Such an unconditional tender of policy benefits is known as a McDill tender
Herbert Robin and Mary A. Robin v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Co., (citation omitted).
Robin v. Allstate Ins. Co. 870 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Co., (citation omitted).
Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 857 So. 2d 1012 La. 2003
Ibrahim v. Hawkins 845 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., Fontana v. Louisiana Sheriffs' Auto.
DeSoto v. Balbeisi 837 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 832 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Co., n. 6 (La.1985) (citing Hart v. Allstate Ins.
Maurice v. Prudential Ins. Co. 831 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Wallace v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 821 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 785 So. 2d 779 La. 2001
Hence, the tender, was unconditional.
LeBlanc v. Babin 786 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Co., , (La.1985), the payment would be unconditionally tendered to the plaintiff not in settlement of the case, but to show their good faith in the matter and to comply with the duties imposed upon them under their contract of insurance with the insured.
Sutton v. Oncale 765 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Khaled, 657 So.2d at 679 .
Calogero v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 753 So. 2d 170 La. 2000
Block v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. 742 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Co., Khaled, 657 So.2d at 679 ; Hart v. Allstate Ins.
Goodman v. Allstate Ins. Co. 736 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
l court erroneously allowed Dr. Joseph Kuebel, an oral surgeon, to state opinions regarding orthodontics, (8) the trial court erred in not striking the testimony of Dr. Kuebel despite his violation of the sequestration order, (9) (10) the trial court erroneously denied Goodman's motion for additur, and (11) the jury's award was unreasonably low and should be increased.
Calogero v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana 735 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Delahoussaye v. Madere 733 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Liberty Mutual made a non-binding tender of $40,000.00
McClendon v. Economy Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. 732 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
the Louisiana Supreme Court defined the phrase "satisfactory proof of loss" in connection with a claim for penalties under La.R.S.
Reed v. Recard 744 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
our supreme court explained that in a 22:658 case, a "satisfactory proof of loss" is "that which is sufficient to fully apprise the insurer of the insured's claim."
Genusa v. Robert 720 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the insurer's duty under its policy provisions to unconditionally tender a reasonable amount to its insured where it is shown that its insured is not at fault, the other driver was underinsured/uninsured and that its insured was damaged.
Molony v. USAA Property and Cas. Ins. Co. 708 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the insurer's duty, under its underinsured/uninsured policy provisions, to unconditionally tender a reasonable amount to its insured where it is shown that its insured is not at fault, the other driver was underinsured/uninsured and that its insured was damaged.
Cooper v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 699 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Fontana v. LA. SHERIFFS'AUTO. RISK 697 So. 2d 1037 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Khaled, 657 So.2d at 679 .
Myers v. Broussard 696 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Co., (citation omitted).
Sanderford v. Lombard 685 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Stagni v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 685 So. 2d 338 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Co., to make a tender offer or face sanctions for failure to do so.
Patin v. Imperial Lloyds Ins. Co. 670 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Malloy v. Vanwinkle 662 So. 2d 96 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Khaled v. Windham 657 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 657 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Courmier-Trahan v. Service Cab Company, Inc., (La.App.
Wells v. Houston 657 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
the Louisiana Supreme Court defined the term "satisfactory proof of loss" in connection with a claim for penalties under R.S.
Steptore v. Masco Const. Co., Inc. 643 So. 2d 1213 La. 1994
Laris v. Parker 635 So. 2d 442 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
22:1220 requires insurers to adjust claims of its insured fairly, and authorizes an award of penalties if the insurer arbitrarily and capriciously refuses to pay an amount over which reasonable minds could not fail to agree is due to its insured, (La.
Hayes v. Richard 634 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Daney v. Haynes 630 So. 2d 949 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993