Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Kessler v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 476.

20 citing documents.

Katty Calderon, Natural Mother of the Decedent, Avril Sanabria Versus Lezly Sanabria, Suly Sanabria, Jonathan Rivera, Abc Insurance … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Parker v. Safeway Insurance Co. 152 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., Matthews v. Arkla Lubricants Inc., 32,121 (La.App.
Sherri Arceneaux v. Amanda Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Bernard v. Ellis 111 So. 3d 995 La. 2012
Batiste v. Dunn 68 So. 3d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Baker v. Hurst 50 So. 3d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Also in Carter v. City Parish Government of East Baton Rouge, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the “arising-out-of use” provision was designed to limit coverage to liability resulting from conduct of the insured which constitutes both a use of the vehicle and a legal cause of the injury.
Trammel v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance 811 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Co., the court found that the gunshot injury did not arise out of the use of a car.
Hollingsworth v. United Services Auto. Association 806 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
in which the plaintiff, while driving his car, was shot by another motorist, who then fled the scene and was never identified.
Matthews v. Arkla Lubricants Inc. 740 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Coleman, supra ; (La.App.
Gedward v. Sonnier 713 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
and Edwards v. Horstman, 96-1403 (La.2/25/97); , the Louisiana Supreme Court established the analysis to be used to determine whether an "arising out of the use" provision of the exclusions portion of an insurance policy has been satisfied.
Edwards v. Horstman 687 So. 2d 1007 La. 1997
Casso v. United Cabs, Inc. 688 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that the "arising-out-of use" provision was designed to limit coverage to liability resulting from conduct of the insured which constitutes both a use of the vehicle and a legal cause of the injury.
Edwards v. Horstman 672 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
However, there is a distinction between liable conduct constituting "use" of the vehicle and liable conduct "while using" a vehicle.
Yagel v. Sanders 653 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Edwards v. Horstman 604 So. 2d 1055 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Willis v. Tipton 593 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Co., concluding that an unidentified motorist’s breach of duty did not arise out of use of his vehicle, although he actually drove the auto during the incident in question.
Smith v. Estrade 589 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Alford v. Kaiser 589 So. 2d 546 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
the Supreme Court stated that the analysis to be used in making such a determination involves two separate questions, as follows: (1) Was the conduct of the uninsured of which the plaintiff complains a legal cause of the injury?
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Joe Dean Contr. 584 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Slade v. Altex Ready-Mix Concrete Corp. 579 So. 2d 1102 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by