Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kelly v. Weil, 563 So. 2d 221.

18 citing documents.

In re Harlan 250 So. 3d 220 La. 2018
4/3/01), , 642 ; Kelly v. Weil , , 224 n.5 (La.
Robinson Bros., Inc. v. Carter 962 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
In excerpts taken from Huggins, this Court noted: In two cases decided the same day, the supreme court examined situations in which the relevant provisions of the umbrella policies were virtually identical.
Huggins v. Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc. 950 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
In two cases decided the same day, (La.
Bonin v. Cournoyer-Buick-Pontiac-GMC, Inc. 922 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
where the supreme court distinguished the terms "covered" and "collectible."
Freeman v. Philan 859 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Scordill v. Smith 635 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. 630 So. 2d 759 La. 1994
Futch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 625 So. 2d 1019 La. 1994
Descant v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 627 So. 2d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. 613 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
e appealed and assigned error to the trial court’s grant of the summary judgment that required “Interstate Fire & Casualty Company to drop down and provide the primary coverage formerly [owed] by Champion Insurance Company.” *212 “[T]he controlling consideration on this ‘drop down’ issue is the agreement between the insurer and the insured, namely, the insurance policy itself.”
Bernard v. Royal Ins. Co. 586 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
as an example of an excess policy that would drop down because its underlying limit of excess coverage is dependent on collectibility of primary limits.
Linares v. LOUISIANA, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 582 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Lindsey v. Poole 579 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
where the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the language of various excess insurance policies to determine whether they provided drop-down coverage in the event of insolvency of the primary underlying insurance carrier.
Weaver v. Kitchens 566 So. 2d 966 La. 1990
granted and remanded to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit
Weaver v. Kitchens 566 So. 2d 966 La. 1990
Granted and remanded to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit
McWright v. Modern Iron Works, Inc. 567 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
Watts v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. 574 So. 2d 364 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Robichaux v. Randolph 563 So. 2d 226 La. 1990
This one, on plaintiff's application, complains of the court of appeal judgment holding there is no drop down, on application of the excess carrier, complained of the lower court determination that there was a drop down in coverage.