DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 195.

189 citing documents.

  • Lefeaux v. Taylor 700 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • Raborn v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 701 So. 2d 141 La. 1997
  • Fontana v. LA. SHERIFFS'AUTO. RISK 697 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Hibernia National Bank v. Smith 697 So. 2d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Mixon v. Progressive Specialty Co. 697 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Nesbitt v. Progressive Ins. Co. 697 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    He contends that the form is defective as a and that the insurer failed to obtain a proper waiver.
  • Hawthorn v. City of Bossier City 697 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Co., Jones v. Airport Systems Intern., 28,278 (La.App.2d Cir. 4/3/96), .
  • Lewis v. Lenard 694 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Gatlin v. Safeway Ins. 692 So. 2d 1059 La. 1997
    Co., this Court held that an uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (UM coverage) rejection form used by State *1060 Farm did not place the applicant in a position to make an “informed rejection” of UM coverage; the form did not set forth all of the options available to the insured, and the applicant therefore
  • Stephenson v. Van Vleit 693 So. 2d 858 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Co., the supreme court set forth the requirements for a valid waiver of UM coverage.
  • Scott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 692 So. 2d 1342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Daigle v. Authement 691 So. 2d 1213 La. 1997
    Co., Henson, 585 So.2d at 538 .
  • Martin v. CNA Ins. Co. 692 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
  • Piper v. Southern United Fire Insurance 692 So. 2d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Co., outlined the requirements for a valid rejection of UM coverage by stating that [T]he insurer must place the insured in a position to make an informed rejection of UM coverage....
  • Longo v. Bercegeay 692 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Company, Banks v. Patterson Ins.
  • Daigle v. Allstate Ins. Co. 690 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    1 Cir.1992), reversed on other grounds
  • Lafitte v. Compton 690 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Nelson, supra ; Pine, supra ; Thomas, supra .
  • McGill v. Cochran Sysco Foods 690 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • Orillion v. Allstate Ins. Co. 690 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the requirements for a valid rejection of UM coverage under Louisiana law.
  • Williams v. National Car Rental System 688 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    We set aside the motion for summary judgment dismissing Imperial Fire and Casualty Company because the uninsured motorist rejection form in the policy, although signed by Williams, did not conform to state law and jurisprudence
  • Henderson v. Maloid 683 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Co., Johnson v. Allstate Ins.
  • Wilkinson v. Louisiana Indemnity 682 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    They reasoned that because the form did not provide them with a "meaningful selection" of the two options available to them, UM coverage equal to bodily limits or no UM coverage, and its progeny.
  • Davies v. LaBorde 683 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    She relies mainly on Tugwell v. State Farm Insurance Co. for the rule that a valid UM [¡waiver form must place the insured in a position to make a meaningful selection of the three options available under La.R.S.
  • Moyles v. Cruz 682 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Deville v. Allstate Ins. Co. 688 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Cangelosi v. Allstate Ins. Co. 680 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Co., Holbrook v. Holliday, 93-1639, p. 3-4 (La.App.
  • Haney v. Zurich Ins. Co. 680 So. 2d 1270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Co., the Supreme Court held that an uninsured motorist rejection form used by an insurance company must give the applicant the opportunity to make a meaningful selection from the options provided by the statute: (1) UM coverage equal to the bodily injury limits on the policy, (2) UM coverage lower than bodily in
  • Gordon v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
    Co., the leading Louisiana Supreme Court case on UM selection, the Supreme Court required that whatever choice the insured makes, that choice must be a meaningful choice.
  • Washington v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. 677 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Pine v. Doolittle 677 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Dugas v. Benoit 677 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Co., is not dispositive of this issue as the question presented in that case was whether the UM rejection was valid in light of the fact that the insured was not given the statutorily granted right to select limits of UM coverage which would be different than the liability limits of the subject policy.
  • Daigle v. Authement 676 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Banks v. Patterson Insurance Company, 94-1176, p. 3 (La.App.
  • Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co. 673 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Frost v. David 673 So. 2d 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • McCurtis v. Free 673 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    Co., in which the Supreme Court stated that the form used by the insurance company must give the applicant the opportunity to make a "meaningful selection" from his options provided by the statute: (1) UM coverage equal to bodily injury limits in the policy; (2) UM coverage lower than bodily injury limits in the
  • Russo v. Reed 673 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • Harris v. Godwin 671 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    Whatley v. Caddo Parish Sheriff's Dept., 27,321 (La.App.2d Cir. 9/27/95), .
  • Jones v. Airport Systems Intern. 671 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Wyatt v. Williams 669 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Fontenot v. Henderson 670 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • Nosser v. Health Care Trust Fund Bd. 666 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
  • Herman v. Rome 668 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • Stephens v. Audubon Ins. Co. 665 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Welch v. Zucco 665 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Hobbs v. Rhodes 667 So. 2d 1112 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • McCoy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 664 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
    instructs courts to liberally construe the statute so that exceptions to UM coverage requirements are interpreted strictly.
  • Griffin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 662 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Bryk v. Brock 663 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
    Co., set forth the components of a valid rejection or selection of lower UM limits of coverage stating: ...
  • JCM Const. Co. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. 663 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • Whatley v. Caddo Parish Sheriff's Dept. 661 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995