Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Breland v. Schilling, 550 So. 2d 609.

136 citing documents.

Janice Goodson v. Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
Jeanne Marie Ehlers and Lisa Gethers Armour, Individually and on Behalf of Decedent, Frederick Louis Gethers v. Ports … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
Cameron Soule v. Woodward Design + Build, LLC, Eagle Scaffolding and Equipment Company, Inc., Eagle Access, L.L.C., Abc … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Damien Harris v. Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana and Justin Rossette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
Marguerite C. Slattery v. Ashley N. Holdsworth La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
A court is to determine the intent of the parties to an insurance contract “in accordance with the general, ordinary, plain and popular meaning of the words used in the policy, unless the words have acquired a technical meaning.” Louisiana Ins., supra; (La.
Stephanie Lewis v. State National Insurance Company, Inc., D/B/A Qeo Insurance Group, David Degruy, Richard's Disposal, Inc., and … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Wilton Crochet and Sabena Crochet v. Nick's Refrigeration Sales and Service, Inc., United Fire Group and Nationwide General … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
Kristen Moon v. Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Nixon R. Calix Versus Ideal Market 6, Hamdallah, L.L.C., Kaki and Son, Llc., Hamdallah Hasan "Mario" Kaki, Muwafak … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
In support of their argument, (La.
Cajun Conti LLC, Cajun Cuisine 1 LLC, and Cajun Cuisine LLC D/B/A Oceana Grill v. Certain Underwriters at … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
“Ambiguity will also be resolved by ascertaining how a reasonable insurance policy purchaser would construe the clause at the time the insurance contract was entered.” -11 (La.
Julio Laboriel-Pitio and Franklin Gustavo Arriola v. Latoya Latiker, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
So then in this case it really comes down to the policy and any exclusions that may apply and that’s the defendant’s burden is to show that the exclusion applies, and I think plaintiff’s counsel cited the Breland [v. Schilling, (La.
Tabitha Wroten, Guardian for Martha Deen v. Ferriday Auto Ventures, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
Brandon S. Wise Indv. and Obo Drey Domone Wise v. George O'Neil and Antoinette O'Neil La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s is very 8 instructive in considering the effect of self-defense on an intentional acts exclusion in insurance policies.
King Charles v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
(“The exclusion is designed to prevent an insured from acting wrongfully with the security of knowing that his insurance company will pay the piper for the damages.”); Goldsmith v. Green, 45,532 (La.App.
Charles v. Safeway Ins. Co. of La. 272 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
See Breland v. Schilling , , 610 (La.1989) ("The exclusion is designed to prevent an insured from acting wrongfully with the security of knowing that his insurance company will pay the piper for the damages."); Goldsmith v. Green , 45,532 (La.App.
Kerri A. Latour v. Allstate Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Latour v. Allstate Ins. Co. 262 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Bernard School Bd., , 976 (La.1991) ; , 610 (La.1989).
Lydia Degueyter v. First American Title Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Degueyter v. First American Title Co. 230 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Safeway Insurance Co. of Louisiana v. Gardner 191 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
(“The exclusion is designed to prevent an insured from acting wrongfully with the security of knowing that his insurance company will pay the piper for the damages.”); Goldsmith v. Green, 45,-532 (La.App.
Porter v. Southern Oaks Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC 165 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
It cites the jurisprudence arising from intentional-injury exclusions in insurance policies
Love v. Sirey 119 So. 3d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Gange v. Hamed 118 So. 3d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Wayne Guillot, Et Ux. v. Reece Guillot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
they argued: There is no question that these brothers were involved in a dispute over a piece of Guillot Farms’ ordinary business, namely a crawfish boat.
Guillot v. Guillot 92 So. 3d 1212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
they argued: There is no question that these brothers were involved in a dispute over a piece of Guillot Farms’ ordinary business, namely a crawfish boat.
Rider v. Ambeau 100 So. 3d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Baggett v. Tassin 39 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
which held that in interpreting an intentional act exclusion, the insured’s subjective intent regarding bodily injury, as measured by the fact finder, controls whether coverage applies.
Graphia v. Schmitt 7 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 975 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Bernard Parish School Bd.
Tsilimos v. GULF MARINE AND INDUS. SUPPLIES 976 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Mr. Tsilimos argues that summary judgment was improper because questions of fact remain as to whether Mr. Spetsiotis intended the injuries sustained by Mr. Tsilimos, for the position that the intentional act exclusion in the policy only applies where the insured acts deliberately and intends or expects bodily injury to another.
Henly v. Phillips Abita Lumber Co. 971 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
McGehee v. Benton 962 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Feierabend v. Starns 961 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed similar policy language in a case concerning an insured’s punch to the victim’s open jaw, which broke said victim’s jaw.
Halphen v. Borja 961 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Andrews v. COLUMBIA CAS. INS. CO. 960 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Canterberry v. Chamblee 953 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
In arguing ambiguity in the policy, and Norwood v. Van Veckhoven, supra , all of which involved policies with language excluding liability coverage for bodily injury "either expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured."
Huggins v. Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc. 950 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
In Re St. Louis Encephalitis Outbreak 939 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Kinchen v. Louie Dabdoub Sell Cars, Inc. 912 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
]; Williams , 98-2024 at pp. 19-20, 731 So.2d at 253 .
Bamert v. Johnson 909 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
On the other hand, that the purpose of liability insurance is to afford the insured protection from damage claims; that *710 policies should be construed to effect, not deny, coverage; and that an exclusion from coverage should be narrowly construed.
Hirst v. Thieneman 905 So. 2d 343 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Lee v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America 900 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Doe v. Breedlove 906 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Jarrell v. Travis 906 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted an intentional injury exclusion, which was identical to the one at issue herein, and stated: *554 [W]hen minor bodily injury is intended, and such results, the injury is barred from coverage.
Doe v. Breedlove 906 So. 2d 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Winn v. Nation 893 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Michael R. Fontenot v. Kipp L. Duplechine La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
b.) such bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree than intended or reasonably expected; The trial court found the intentional act clause to be inapplicable, reasoning that the clause is ambiguous
Fontenot v. Duplechine 891 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
b.) such bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree than intended or reasonably expected; The trial court found the intentional act clause to be inapplicable, reasoning that the clause is ambiguous
Dykes v. Dykes 877 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
the supreme court interpreted an intentional injury exclusion which was even more explicit than the one at issue herein and stated: [W]hen minor bodily injury is intended, and such results, the injury is barred from coverage.
McDermott Inc. v. Records Storage & Services, Inc. 875 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004