DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., 563 So. 2d 258.

33 citing documents.

  • Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., ( La.
  • Patrick Williams v. University of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
    10/31/08), (citing Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., ).
  • Baltazar Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    and such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless such an intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.” Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Ortiz v. Meadwestvaco Corp. 274 So. 3d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc. , , 259 (La.1990).
  • Daniels v. Int'l Paper Co. 245 So. 3d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    Coverage of the indemnification provision In Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc. , , 259 (La.
  • Plaia v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. 229 So. 3d 480 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Subsequently, in Perkins r Rubicon, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an indemnity contract will not be construed to- indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts' unless such an intention is expressed' in unequivocal terms.
  • Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Construction Co. 179 So. 3d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Berry v. Orleans Parish Sch.
  • Scarberry v. Entergy Corp. 136 So. 3d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Subsequently, in Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an indemnity contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless such an intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.
  • Moreno v. Entergy Corp. 79 So. 3d 406 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 6/18/08) , , writ denied, 08-1635, 08-1640 (La.10/31/08), , citing Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Boykin v. PPG Industries, Inc. 987 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Tamerah Boykin v. Ppg Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Hai Nam Chin. Rest. Part. v. B & B Const. 942 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Also, "[t]he question to be considered in determining whether an indemnity agreement is enforceable is `whether the risk that resulted in the injury was one contemplated by the parties to the contract.'" Soloco, 758 So.2d at 855 (quoting Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., ).
  • Hai Nam Chinese Restaurant Partnership v. B & B Construction of New Iberia La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Also, “[t]he question to be considered in determining whether an indemnity agreement is enforceable is ‘whether the risk that resulted in the injury was one contemplated by the parties to the contract.’” Soloco, 758 So.2d at 855 (quoting Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., ).
  • Naquin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. 943 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Dean v. Griffin Crane & Steel, Inc. 935 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    Berry v. Orleans Parish School Board, 01-3283, p. 4 (La.6/21/02), , citing Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Klutz v. New Orleans Public Facility Management, Inc. 921 So. 2d 1021 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    reement that the claim arise out of the contractor’s performance or non-performance of the contract has been construed to refer not to a showing of fault on the contractor’s part but rather to a showing of “a connexity similar to that required for determining cause-in-fact: Would the particular injury have occurred but for the performance of the work under the contract?” Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Morella v. Board of Commissioners 888 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See also Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., (La.
  • Bodenheimer v. New Orleans Public Belt 845 So. 2d 1279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Further, that indemnification agreement should be strictly construed by the court and absent an unequivocal express agreement on the issue; attorney’s fees are not recoverable, citing, Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., Soloco, Inc. v. Dupree, 99-1476 (La.App.
  • Coulon v. Witco Corp. 845 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., Soverign Ins., Such a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless such an intention is expressed in unequivocal terms.
  • Berry v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 830 So. 2d 283 La. 2002
    (Citations omitted) Subsequently, in Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., this court held that an indemnity contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless such an intention is expressed in unequivocal terms: A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his
  • McGill v. Cochran-Sysco Foods 818 So. 2d 301 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    Adams v. Falcon Equipment Corp., supra , citing Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., and Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Soloco, Inc. v. Dupree 758 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Dartez v. Atlas Assurance Co. 746 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Concerning indemnity provisions of a contract, in Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., the supreme court stated: A contract of indemnity whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against the consequences of his own negligence is strictly construed, and | fisuch a contract will not be construed to indemnify an indemnitee against losses resulting to him through his own negligent acts unless su
  • Adams v. Falcon Equipment Corp. 717 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., (La.
  • Hesse v. Champ Service Line 707 So. 2d 1295 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Stewart v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 686 So. 2d 907 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., Soverign Ins., (La.
  • Couvillion v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 672 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • McGoldrick v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc. 649 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    concludes that when the contract under consideration by the court is one of indemnity, whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against consequences of his or her own negligence, it is to be strictly construed, and the contract will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him or
  • McGoldrick v. Lou Ana Foods, Inc. 649 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    concludes that when the contract under consideration by the court is one of indemnity, whereby the indemnitee is indemnified against consequences of his or her own negligence, it is to be strictly construed, and the contract will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against losses resulting to him or
  • Spell v. NL Industries, Inc. 618 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., (La.App.
  • Laper v. BOARD OF COM'RS, PORT OF NEW ORLEANS 617 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Wallace v. Helmer Directional Drilling, Inc. 600 So. 2d 142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    ” Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc.
  • Yocum v. City of Minden 566 So. 2d 1082 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    Perkins v. Rubicon, Inc., Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., (La.App.