DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

62 citing documents.

  • Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc. 563 So. 2d 258 La. 1990
  • Owens v. US Home, Inc. 552 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a contract of indemnity between a lessee and a contractor provided indemnity against the lessee's strict liability to a third person.
  • Malmay v. Sentry Ins. Co. 550 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • Hamilton v. Facility Management of Louisiana, Inc. 545 So. 2d 1198 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    4th Cir.1982) writ denied
  • Williams v. Exxon Corp. 541 So. 2d 910 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Spicuzza v. Fonseca 537 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    Straley v. Calongne Drayage and Storage, Inc., (La.App.
  • Clement v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 528 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The rules for interpreting a contract of indemnity are set forth, in pertinent part, -986 (La.1986), as follows: When a contract of indemnity makes no express provisions for indemnification against the consequences of the indemni-tee’s negligence, and an unequivocal intention to so indemnify cannot be found after interpreting each contractual provision in light of the whole contract and the genera
  • Pitre v. Ecko Housewares Co., Inc. 521 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    See Soverign Insurance Co. v. Texas Pipe Line Co. [ (La.
  • Aycock v. Allied Enterprises, Inc. 517 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    The general rules for interpreting a contract prior to Act 331 of 1984, which became effective January 1, 1985, as follows: The general rules which govern the interpretation of other contracts apply in construing a contract of indemnity....
  • Hurst v. Ricard 514 So. 2d 14 La. 1987
  • First Federal Savings Bank v. Dan Quirk Ford Co. 504 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    2045-2057; as follows: Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties_ When the words of a con-ti’act are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties’ intent....
  • Lopez v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. 495 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986