DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

136 citing documents.

  • Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp. 665 So. 2d 1166 La. 1996
  • Doe v. Doe 665 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    for the proposition that determining Doe's subjective intent is within the province of the trier of fact and is inappropriate for summary judgment.
  • Gleason v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. 660 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Lewis v. Hayes 659 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Co. v. Gaspard, 608 So.2d at 984
  • Dunn v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Illinois 657 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc. 656 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Jeansonne v. Detillier 656 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    The Supreme Court, considered an exclusion clause in an insurance policy similar to the first clause in this policy.
  • Belsom v. Bravo 658 So. 2d 1304 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • Smith v. Perkins 648 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    Great American Insurance Co. v. Gaspard, 608 So.2d at 984
  • South Cent. Bell v. Ka-Jon Food Stores 644 So. 2d 357 La. 1994
    art. 2047; Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., supra
  • Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd. 634 So. 2d 1180 La. 1994
  • Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. 630 So. 2d 759 La. 1994
    Art. 2047; [7] Capital Bank & Trust Co. v. Equitable Life Assur.
  • Hackett v. Schmidt 630 So. 2d 1324 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • Yount v. Maisano 627 So. 2d 148 La. 1993
    Borden, Inc. v. Howard Trucking Co., Inc., LeJeune v. Allstate Ins.
  • Provost v. Provost 617 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Coverage E—Personal Liability and Coverage F—Medical Payments To Others do not apply to bodily injury or property damage: a. Which is expected or intended by the insured;" In 1989, (La.
  • Yount v. Maisano 616 So. 2d 1382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, stated that [t]he purpose of the intentional injury exclusion is to restrict liability insurance coverage ...
  • La. Maintenance Services, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London 616 So. 2d 1250 La. 1993
    art. 2056; Kendrick v. Mason, 234 La.
  • Shaw v. Bourn 615 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Bourn and the plaintiffs argue that under the jury's finding that child molestation was a negligent and not an intentional act, the intentional act exclusion of the homeowner's policy would not apply, rehearing denied (La.1989).
  • Smith v. Matthews 611 So. 2d 1377 La. 1993
  • Alvarado v. Doe 613 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    by applying the "intentional injury exclusion" analysis to its assault and battery exclusionary clause.
  • Great American Ins. Co. v. Gaspard 608 So. 2d 981 La. 1992
  • RPM Pizza, Inc. v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co. 601 So. 2d 1366 La. 1992
  • Great American Ins. Co. v. Gaspard 594 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    that the purpose of the intentional injury exclusion is to restrict liability insurance coverage by denying coverage to an insured in circumstances where the insured acts deliberately, intends or expects bodily injury and property damage to result.
  • Pickney v. Smith 597 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    at page 611 our Supreme Court further explained: -81 (La.1981), this Court addressed the meaning of this statute’s “intentional act” language, opining that the statute’s “intentional act” exception mirrored the traditional distinction between intentional torts and ne
  • Simpson v. Angel 598 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • Keathley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. 594 So. 2d 963 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
  • Cavalier v. Suberville 592 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
  • Sam Z. Scandaliato v. First Eastern Bank 589 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Jim Carey Distributing Co. v. Zinna 589 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    as authority for its contention that "A finding of coverage hinges entirely on whether the damages sustained by the plaintiff were subjectively intended or expected by the insured."
  • Clement v. Sontheimer Offshore Catering Co. 577 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Doe v. Smith 573 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Ellison v. BALLEY FORGE INS. CO. 571 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Both Dr. Ellison and Bailey argue that the instant policy exclusions should not operate to exclude coverage under the circumstances of this case, correctly applied, indicates that coverage should apply under the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
  • Plaisance v. Fogg 568 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • Baugh v. Redmond 565 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    In interpreting an identical provision, (La.
  • Menard v. Zeno 558 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    our Supreme Court, as in Pique , noted that the exclusionary clause at issue is ambiguous and should be given a reasonable interpretation *748 which gives effect to the subjective intention of the insured and one which accords a reasonable layman's expectation as to the scope of coverage.
  • Wyvill v. State Employees Group Benefits Program 558 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990