Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Wyatt v. Robin, 518 So. 2d 494.

16 citing documents.

Faith A. Boudoin Versus Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, Amex Assurance Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
In support of this argument, RLI cites to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s (La.
Green v. Michael Johnson, State Farm Ins. Agency, Allstate Ins. Co. 241 So. 3d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Nonetheless, in Wyatt v. Robin , , 495 (La.
Halphen v. Borja 961 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
(claimant driving his own vehicle with statutory minimum UM coverage could claim higher UM coverage available to him on his parents' automobile, since he resided in their household at the time of the accident and thus, was an insured under their policy).
Seither v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. 808 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
22:1406(D)(1)(c); Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3D § 169.4, at 169-15 to -14, 169.7, at 169-20 to21 (3d ed.1998); (Lemmon, J., concurring).
Livas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 797 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Clavier v. Roberts 755 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Boullt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 752 So. 2d 739 La. 1999
22:1406(D)(1)(c); LEE R. RUSS & THOMAS F. SEGALLA, COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D § 169.4, at 169-15 to -14, 169.7, at 169-20 to -21 (3d ed.1998); (Lemmon, J., concurring).
Taylor v. Sider 714 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a person who is insured under more than one policy and who is injured while occupying an owned vehicle may select, from among those policies, the one under which he would prefer to recover.
Fontenot v. FARM BUREAU INS. COMPANIES 629 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co. 619 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Hull v. Louisiana Indem. 606 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
3d Cir.), writ granted, reversed and remanded in decided five years after Taylor , the Court dealt with a situation similar to that in Taylor .
Galliano v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. 606 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Haltom v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 588 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Fay v. Willis 577 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
in support of its contention that plaintiffs may not recover under its policy because they had already selected from available UM coverage.
Bonstill v. Avant 576 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
presented the same fact situations as in the case before us, i.e., the plaintiff was injured while occupying a vehicle which he owned and which was covered by his own UM insurance.
Vincent v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 526 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
Recently, , rendered on January 18, 1988, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected an identical argument in a case presenting a similar factual situation.