Cited by

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

189 citing documents.

Banks v. Patterson Ins. Co. 664 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Anderson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 93-1102 (La.App.
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joseph 656 So. 2d 1000 La. 1995
Martin v. Champion Ins. Co. 656 So. 2d 991 La. 1995
Degruise v. Houma Courier Newspaper Corp. 657 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Kirkland v. Riverwood Intern. USA, Inc. 658 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Perfect Equipment Corp. v. Louisiana Recycling, Inc. 655 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Jones v. Crane Co. 653 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Nelson v. Ragan 653 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Hopkins v. American Cyanamid Co. 653 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Farm Credit Bank of Texas v. Bassett 653 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
West v. Louisiana Indem. Co. 653 So. 2d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Guillory v. Interstate Gas Station 653 So. 2d 1152 La. 1995
Zeringue v. Liberty Lloyd's Insurance Co. 694 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
The applicable jurisprudential rules for determining whether an insured party’s rejection of UM coverage in an automobile liability insurance policy is valid were most recently explained by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Tugwell v. State Farm, Insurance Co., as follows: At all times relevant to this case, La.
Jordan v. City of Baton Rouge 652 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Thomason v. City of New Orleans 650 So. 2d 1247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Caddo Parish Sewerage District No. 7 v. Reeves 649 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
Art. 966; Potter v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Scotlandville, Aufrichtig v. Progressive Men’s Club of Louisiana, Inc., 25,581 (La.App.2d Cir. 03/30/94), .
Carter v. Baham 649 So. 2d 967 La. 1995
Co., and that he is therefore entitled to UM coverage in the amount of the bodily injury limits of the umbrella policy.
Esponge v. City of New Orleans 650 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Joseph 649 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Billiot v. BP Oil Co. 645 So. 2d 604 La. 1994
Co., see also Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2716, at 643-44 (1983).
Bank of Louisiana v. Berry 648 So. 2d 991 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that "[a]ppellate courts should review the granting of a summary judgment de novo under the same criteria governing the trial court's consideration of *993 whether a summary judgment is appropriate."
Thomas v. Goodson 647 So. 2d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Savell v. Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. 647 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Carter v. Baham 644 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co. 642 So. 2d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Holbrook v. Holliday 640 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Patin v. Universal Equipment, Inc. 640 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Banks v. Brookshire Bros., Inc. 640 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Morgan v. Sanchez 635 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Co., in which the supreme court wrote 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
Washington v. Savoie 634 So. 2d 1176 La. 1994
Co., Roger v. Estate of Moulton, 513 So.2d at 1132 ; Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins.
Faucheaux v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. 633 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Co., rehearing denied (Jan.
Futch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 625 So. 2d 1019 La. 1994
Doyle v. Titan Indem. Co. 629 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Moore v. Crystal Oil Co. 626 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Hebert v. ABBEVILLE GENERAL HOSP. 625 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Huguet v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 619 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Co., our Supreme Court recently reiterated the requirements for a valid rejection or selection of lower UM limits: This court has held a valid rejection or selection of lower limits must be in writing and signed by the named insured or his legal representative.
Allen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 617 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Recently, our Supreme Court reiterated what constitutes a valid rejection or selection of lower UM limits of coverage stating: ...
Meier v. Johnson 616 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Mosley v. Dairyland Ins. Co. 614 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
the Louisiana Supreme Court held invalid a rejection of UM coverage in an umbrella insurance policy where the application form did not offer the option of selecting UM limits lower than the liability coverage and failed to inform the insured of that option.