Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hearty v. Harris, 574 So. 2d 1234.

69 citing documents.

Tiffany Wines v. Jamila Hollingsquest and Geico Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
Calvin Landry & Mary Landry v. Progressive La. 2022
32:900(C) must be incorporated into an automobile policy was without merit); n. 19 (La.
Joseph Tatney v. City of Deridder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3 (citation omitted) (“We find no provision in the LMVSRL which expressly requires a self-insured to be responsible for the actions of a person using the vehicle with the express or implied consent of the self-insured or the authorized driver(s).
Tatney v. City of Deridder 206 So. 3d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
(citation omitted) ("We find no provision in the LMVSRL which expressly requires a self-insured to be responsible for the actions of a person using the vehicle with the express or implied consent of the self-insured or the authorized driver(s).
Porretto v. Perkins 158 So. 3d 826 La. 2015
Thomas Allen v. Allstate Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Allen v. Allstate Insurance Co. 10 So. 3d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Norman Trahan and Anna Levy v. Leon Boutte La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
“At the heart of this statutory scheme is the decision to attach the financial protection to the vehicle rather than to the operator.” (La.
Levy v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of New Orleans 8 So. 3d 839 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
“At the heart of this statutory scheme is the decision to attach the financial protection to the vehicle rather than to the operator.”
Lsat v. Louisiana Insur. Guar. Ass'n 998 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
The court noted that self-insurance is not equivalent to an insurance policy, and cited a prior decision, (La.
Albert John Abshire v. Clinton P. Desmoreaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
: A. Applicability of La.R.S.
Abshire v. Desmoreaux 970 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
: A. Applicability of La.R.S.
Alwell v. Meadowcrest Hosp., Inc. 971 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp. 908 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
[6] Our research reveals this Court has mentioned, but has not discussed or addressed, the "contract of adhesion" doctrine in the following cases: Meloy v. Conoco, Inc., (Watson, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part); (Watson, J., dissenting); Lejano v. Bandak, 97-0388 (La.12/12/97), (on rehearing)(Calogero, C.J., Lemmon, and Kimball, JJ., dissenting from the denial of the Application for Rehearing).
Bryant v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 881 So. 2d 1214 La. 2004
Co., 98-2040, p. 3 (La.6/4/99)
Bryant v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N 881 So. 2d 1214 La. 2004
Co., 98-2040, p. 3 (La.6/4/99)
Cenance v. Tassin 869 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Cooper v. Reed 845 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Collins v. Randall 836 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a self-insured rental agency is not required by law to afford omnibus coverage in compliance with the LMVSRL and can lawfully restrict omnibus coverage provided under a rental agreement.
Williams v. US Agencies Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. 779 So. 2d 729 La. 2001
Simms v. Butler, 97-0416 (La.12/2/97)
Spiro v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 761 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
The appellant argues that the trial court's decision herein is erroneous because it violates the public policy, that the coverage on the vehicle in which the victim is riding is primary.
Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., Inc. 740 So. 2d 603 La. 1999
[2] Simms v. Butler, 97-0416, p. 2 (La.12/2/97)
Taylor v. Rowell 736 So. 2d 812 La. 1999
Baugh v. Ray 751 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Francis v. Crawford 732 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
provides that under normal circumstances rental agencies are not required to provide omnibus coverage for permissive users.
Adams v. Thomas 729 So. 2d 1041 La. 1999
Simms v. Butler, 97-0416 (La.12/2/97)
Hussain v. Enterprise Leasing Co., Inc. 735 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
32:1042 and is not mandated by law to provide UM coverage to a customer, -1239 (La.1991).
Saltzman v. Broussard 736 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Taylor v. Rowell 727 So. 2d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Hickey v. Centenary Oyster House 719 So. 2d 421 La. 1998
(addressing automobile liability exclusions).
Hanson v. Benelli 719 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Straughter v. Harnwell 715 So. 2d 718 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
: In enacting the LMVSRL the legislature, apparently recognizing the unique nature of rental ear agencies, specifically stated in La.R.S.
State Farm Automobile Ass'n v. Morgan 709 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Dees v. National Security Fire & Casualty Insurance 707 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Salavarria v. National Car Rental System, Inc. 705 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Huntington v. National Automotive Insurance 704 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Succession of Carrier v. Allstate Insurance 702 So. 2d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
The court further found that provisions of the lease agreement limiting liability coverage to the lessee and other named additional drivers did not violate public policy, where the supreme court held that it was not against public policy for a self-insured automobile rental agency to restrict liability coverage to certain named drivers.
Hebard v. Dillon 699 So. 2d 497 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Johnson v. Davis 697 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Bellard v. Johnson 692 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Fields, , : In Fields , the court correctly distinguished between a compulsory liability policy required under the LMVSRL by La.R.S.
Tybussek v. Wong 690 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Simms v. Butler 685 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Mercadel v. Tran, 92-0798 (La.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Landry 688 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
The court stated the following with regard to the public policy governing their decision: Raimer [ v. New England Ins.
Holland v. Golden Rule Ins. Co. 688 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Parker v. DePriest 666 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Chedville v. Insurance Co. of North America 664 So. 2d 1310 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
32:900(B)(2) : "At the heart of this statutory scheme is the decision to attach the financial protection to the vehicle rather than to the operator."
Williams v. Forbes 650 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Raimer, supra and Mercadel, supra, that exclusions of specific drivers are permitted and not against public policy providing they do not conflict with existing statutory provisions mandating an omnibus clause, it is apparent that the present policy provision goes much farther, excluding coverage for an enti
Campbell v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 647 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Weston v. Hollis 647 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Appellant cites two recent Louisiana Supreme Court cases that have ruled on LRS 32:861 and LRS 32:1042, (one concurring opinion and three dissents)
Niven v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. 646 So. 2d 1108 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
: the plaintiff fail[s] to discern the distinction between a "motor vehicle liability policy" and an "automobile liability policy."