Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Mercadel v. Tran, 635 So. 2d 438.

18 citing documents.

Stephanie Lewis v. State National Insurance Company, Inc., D/B/A Qeo Insurance Group, David Degruy, Richard's Disposal, Inc., and … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
App. 4 Cir. 03/29/94), (citing 12 GEORGE J. COUCH, COUCH CYCLOPEDIA OF INSURANCE LAW 616 (2nd ed. 1981)).
Craig Biagas v. Ronald Portaway La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Rapalo-Alfaro v. Lee 173 So. 3d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Cao v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 119 So. 3d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 973 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 3/29/94) , ), including his right to recover business personal property losses, Lafayette's attempt to disprove business personal property coverage by asserting the terms and conditions of the policy did not raise a new matter or constitute a defense that assumes Mr. Sher's allegations to be true, but merely sought to dispr
Alexander v. Cornett 961 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Dinh Ho v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 3/29/94), Pierce v. Aetna Life and Cas.
Ho v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 862 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
4 Cir. 3/29/94) , ; Pierce v. Aetna Life and Cas.
Wade v. Autoland, Inc. 767 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Tardiff v. Valley Forge Insurance 743 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Joseph v. Dickerson 728 So. 2d 1066 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Gandy v. United Services Auto. Ass'n 721 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
4th Cir. 3/29/94); ; Pierce v. Aetna Life and Cas.
State Farm Automobile Ass'n v. Morgan 709 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
4 Cir. 3/29/94) , , to support its contention that “[ijnsurance clauses which purport to exclude omnibus coverage for permissive drivers have been held to be invalid by Louisiana courts.” This reliance is misplaced, as *350 we held in Mercadel that “[ejxclusions of certain drivers in automobile liability policies are permitted and it i
Batiste v. Antonio 706 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Bourque v. Audubon Ins. Co. 704 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
4 Cir. 3/29/94) ; ; Pierce v. Aetna Life and Cas.
Simms v. Butler 685 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
App. 4th Cir. 3/29/94), .
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Landry 688 So. 2d 1125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
4 Cir. 3/29/94) ; ], 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 entire class of drivers who *1130 have the perm
Williams v. Forbes 650 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
4th Cir. 3/29/94), , the court discussed the omnibus law thusly: An omnibus clause is a clause in an automobile insurance policy which extends the term "insured" to include the named insured and also includes any other person while using the vehicle provided the actual use of the vehicle is by the named insured or with his permission or