Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., 504 So. 2d 833.

85 citing documents.

Becnel v. United Gas Pipeline Co. 655 So. 2d 409 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
In Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., answer to certified question conformed to, 817 F.2d 275 , 1988 A.M.C.
Tassin v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. 649 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Alleman v. Brownie Drilling Co. 647 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
9:2780, does not forbid the contractual indemnification of producers found free of fault Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (La.App.
Steptore v. Masco Const. Co., Inc. 643 So. 2d 1213 La. 1994
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., American Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
Black v. First City Bank 642 So. 2d 151 La. 1994
and Meloy v. Conoco, Inc.
Distinguished FEDERAL INS. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. 638 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., distinguished liability and indemnity policies, stating that: An indemnity agreement is a specialized form of contract which is distinguishable from a liability insurance policy.
Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd. 634 So. 2d 1180 La. 1994
Sanders v. Wysocki 631 So. 2d 1330 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (La.
Yount v. Maisano 627 So. 2d 148 La. 1993
Yount v. Maisano 616 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (La.
Brennan v. Shell Offshore, Inc. 612 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Daigle v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co. 610 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
As pointed out by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., the Louisiana legislature passed LSA-R.S.
Daigle v. US FIDELITY AND GUAR. INS. CO. 610 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
As pointed out by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., the Louisiana legislature passed LSA-R.S.
Amant v. Mack 590 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., see also: Jensen v. Snellings, 841 F.2d 600, 612 (5th Cir.1988).
Hallar Enterprises, Inc. v. Hartman 583 So. 2d 883 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., American Home Assurance Co. v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
Berninger v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. 582 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
The trial judge maintained the exception, stating in oral reasons for judgment that: Basic has filed the exception this morning, no cause of action, case for the proposition that a cause of action for indemnification will not arise until there has been actually a loss or a payment made.
Quinlan v. Liberty Bank and Trust Co. 575 So. 2d 336 La. 1991
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (La.
Lowe & Sons v. Great American Surplus 572 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., Cute'-Togs of New Orleans, Inc. v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
Authement v. Conoco, Inc. 566 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Conoco and Pelham stipulated that the amount paid by Conoco was reasonable, that Conoco’s claim for indemnity was based solely on the Charter Party Agreement of November 11, 1984, and that Conoco did not allege that it was free from fault for purposes of pursuing an indemnity claim under Meloy v. Conoco, Inc.
Rodrigue v. LeGros 563 So. 2d 248 La. 1990
Webb v. Shell Offshore Inc. 557 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Williamson v. Historic Hurstville Ass'n 556 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
This test was recently reaffirmed by that court in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc.
Zapata Gulf Marine Operators v. Tax Com'n 554 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (La.App.
Palmer v. General Health, Inc. 552 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
“It is the terms of the indemnity agreement which govern the obligations of the parties.” Meloy v. Conoco, Inc.
Fuselier v. Amoco Production Co. 546 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., in response to a certified question from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged the validity of a contractual provision which allows for indemnification in favor of the producer if and when the producer is found to be free from fault.
Quinlan v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co. 545 So. 2d 1140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
In Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined the difference between an indemnity agreement and a general liability insurance policy as follows: “A cause of action under a liability insurance policy accrues when the liability attaches.
Murray v. Trunkline Gas Co. 544 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Crater v. Mesa Offshore Co. 539 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
With respect to Mesa's demand for defense costs, spoke clearly to this issue.
Alombro v. Salman 536 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
St. Amant v. Glesby-Marks Corp. 532 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Allen v. Keeney 532 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
Clement v. Pressure Services, Inc. 526 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
9:2780, 2 on such provisions for indemnity and defense costs in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., pursuant to a Certificate from the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Explained Pareti v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 519 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
251 , (1969); Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (La.
Ark-La-Tex Timber Co. v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. 516 So. 2d 1217 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., American Home Assurance Company v. Czarniecki, 255 La.
Cannon v. Pennzoil Co. 520 So. 2d 941 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Recently, in Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., the Supreme Court, in response to questions certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, set to rest the conflicts in previous jurisprudence on the issue to defend based on indemnification agreements contained in master service agreements covered by the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act