Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Soverign Ins. Co. v. Texas Pipe Line Co., 488 So. 2d 982.

62 citing documents.

Daniels v. Int'l Paper Co. 245 So. 3d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Co. v. Texas Pipe Line Co. , (La.
Beebe v. Larche 218 So. 3d 1114 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Pace Builders v. Westco Trucking & Contracting, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Rosaria D. Maya v. Priola Construction Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Maya v. Priola Construction Corp. 128 So. 3d 1009 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
J'me Decker v. Cox Communications, La., LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Decker v. COX COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA, LLC 27 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Babin v. Planet Beach Tanning Salons, Inc. 8 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-3283 (La.5/21/02), .
Reggio v. E.T.I. 15 So. 3d 951 La. 2008
Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-3283 (La.5/21/02), .
Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc. 987 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Tamerah Boykin v. Ppg Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
Moore v. Kenilworth/Kailas Properties 978 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Orlando v. E.T.I. 961 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2001-3283 (La.5/21/02), .
Naquin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 951 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Hai Nam Chin. Rest. Part. v. B & B Const. 942 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Co., v. Texas Pipe Line Co. (La.
Hai Nam Chinese Restaurant Partnership v. B & B Construction of New Iberia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Co., v. Texas Pipe Line Co., see also, Soloco, Inc. v. Dupree, 99-1476 (La.App.
Ranger Insurance v. Shop Rite, Inc. 921 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Kelly Marshall v. Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Marshall v. Southwest Louisiana Electric Membership Corp. 915 So. 2d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
TL James & Co., Inc. v. Sam's Truck Serv., Inc. 875 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
5 Cir. 4/25/00) , ; writ denied, XXXX-XXXX (La.9/29/00), [3] Soverign Ins.
Coulon v. Witco Corp. 845 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 830 So. 2d 283 La. 2002
Jackson v. America's Favorite Chicken Co. 778 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Dartez v. Atlas Assurance Co. 746 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Hesse v. Champ Service Line 732 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
that “a slightly different standard governs when the indemnitee’s liability is based on strict liability rather than negligence.” Home Ins.
Russell v. City of New Orleans, Department of Property Management 732 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
the Court considered whether a similar rule of contractual interpretation should be applied to determine if a contract provides indemnity against an indemnitee’s strict liability under La.
Adams v. Falcon Equipment Corp. 717 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Freeman v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., Inc. 714 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Fontenot v. Town of Mamou 676 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Brown v. Drillers, Inc. 630 So. 2d 741 La. 1994
Himel Marine, Inc. v. Braquet 629 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Graham Resources v. Lexington Ins. 625 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Sandbom v. Basf Wyandotte Corp. 618 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Although I do not agree with some of the reasoning of the majority, I
Daigle v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co. 610 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Daigle v. US FIDELITY AND GUAR. INS. CO. 610 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Wallace v. Helmer Directional Drilling, Inc. 600 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
” Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
DeWoody v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 595 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Polozola v. Garlock, Inc.
Richard v. Borden, Inc. 597 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs 591 So. 2d 342 La. 1991
McKinney v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. 590 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Soverign [ Insurance, ] supra, *1223 [(La.1986) ], held that a slightly different standard governs when the indemnitee's liability is based on strict liability rather than negligence.
Home Ins. Co. v. National Tea Co. 588 So. 2d 361 La. 1991
1977), to exculpate National from liability for fire damage caused by National's fault.
Perkins v. J.W. Contractors, Inc. 586 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
observed: “When there is doubt as to indemnification against an indemnitee’s own negligence liability, however, usage, custom or equity may not be used to interpret a contract expansively in favor of the in-demnitee.
McLaughlin v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. 582 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
1st Cir.1985), amended and affirmed
Home Insurance Co. v. National Tea Co. 577 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the rules for contract interpretation as follows: Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties.
Harris v. Agrico Chemical Co. 570 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that, unlike negligence cases, a contract of indemnity will not be presumed to exclude strict liability when it is not specifically mentioned.
Liem v. Austin Power, Inc. 569 So. 2d 601 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.
Yocum v. City of Minden 566 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.
Rodrigue v. LeGros 563 So. 2d 248 La. 1990