Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 632 So. 2d 736.

93 citing documents.

Janice Goodson v. Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2025
2/28/94), the court did not rely on any statute to determine whether coverage existed for nonphysical injuries, and its decision to leave La.R.S.
Louise Theresa Doty v. Goauto Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
2/28/94), to entitle recovery of Lejeune damages under a separate per-person limit.
Doty v. Goauto Ins. Co. 251 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
2/28/94), , to entitle recovery of Lejeune damages under a separate per-person limit.
Smith v. Thomas 214 So. 3d 945 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
2/28/94), , the Supreme [1fiCourt considered whether, under the terms of the policy at issue there, a Lejeune claim amounted to bodily injury as defined.
George Raymond Williams, M.D. v. Sif Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Co., 93-509, p. 6 (La.2/28/94), (citations and footnotes omitted).
Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. 209 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
2/28/94), (citations and footnotes omitted).
Marshall v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 182 So. 3d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), , somehow broadened the meaning of the term “bodily injury” for purposes of UM disputes so that Lafleur’s rationale should now be rejected.
George Raymond Williams, M.D. v. Sif Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
2/28/94), (citations and footnotes omitted).
Sova v. Cove Homeowner's Ass'n 102 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See Hill v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, 05-1783, p. 5 (La.7/10/06), ; Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), -45 .
Bernard v. Ellis 76 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), (stating: "An insurance policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or strained manner so as to enlarge or restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so as to achieve an absurd conclusion.").
Tim Wagner v. Inn of Lake Charles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Andrew Richard v. Robert Brasseaux, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
2/28/94), (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
Wagner v. Inn of Lake Charles 49 So. 3d 592 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Co., 93-509 (La.2/28/94), .
Richard v. Brasseaux 50 So. 3d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
3 Cir. 2/18/98), , unit denied, 98-0713 (La.5/1/98), , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
Barry J. Rafflee, Sr. v. Hurricane Sports, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
Rafflee v. Hurricane Sports, Inc. 20 So. 3d 1202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Co., 93-509 (La.2/28/94), .
Martha B. Bonin v. Brian A. Verret La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
2/28/94), the supreme court decided the issue of whether a spouse’s claim for mental anguish resulting from witnessing her husband’s motorcycle accident constituted a separate bodily injury, thus entitling her to a separate “per person” limit of recovery.
Bonin v. Verret 15 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-509 (La.2/28/94), , the supreme court decided the issue of whether a spouse’s claim for mental anguish resulting from witnessing her husband’s motorcycle accident constituted a separate bodily injury, thus entitling her to a separate “per person” limit of recovery.
Subervielle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 995 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), , and Hill v. Shelter Mut.
Distinguished Hebert v. Webre 982 So. 2d 770 La. 2008
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), and Hill v. Shelter Mut.
Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 975 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), ; (La.App.
Hebert v. Webre 971 So. 2d 1238 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Co., 93-509 (La.2/28/94), (La.
Rolston v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 948 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), .
Rolston v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N. 948 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), .
Paul Darren Williams v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. and Venson R. Aymond La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Williams v. Aymond 945 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Hill v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. 935 So. 2d 691 La. 2006
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), , we determined that the policy language at issue did not restrict a wife's Lejeune mental anguish claim to "per person" limits, and allowed her to collect under her own "per person" limit, subject to the policy's aggregate "per accident" limit.
Smith v. Burton 928 So. 2d 74 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts have been set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), .
Hill v. Coregis Ins. Co. 911 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
1 Cir. 9/22/00) , , writ denied, 2000-2913 (La.2/9/01), , and Crabtree v. State Farm, 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), .
DAIGLE & ASSOCIATES v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 916 So. 2d 1078 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), ; Davenport v. Prudential Property & Cas.
Hill v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 916 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Plaintiffs rely on the case of Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), , wherein the supreme court held that an autom'obile policy’s bodily injury limitation was ambiguous as applied to a spouse’s Lejeune claim under La.
Young v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 900 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), , the court considered the |4issue of whether a wife’s mental anguish suffered upon witnessing an injury to her husband constitutes a separate bodily injury under an automobile insurance policy thereby entitling the wife to her own per person policy limit subject to the aggregate per accident limit.
Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. 892 So. 2d 7 La. 2005
This court first addressed the issue of the retroactivity of the amendments allowing a credit against SEB for other workers' compensation benefits previously paid to injured employees in Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 93-2963 (La.2/25/94), .
Rebecca Ann Hardie v. Professional Physical Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC, Etc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
2/28/94), Mrs. Crabtree, who was following behind her husband in a separate vehicle, witnessed him being struck by a vehicle as he operated his motorcycle.
Hardie v. Professional Physical Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC 883 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), , Mrs. Crabtree, who was following behind her husband in a separate vehicle, witnessed him being struck by a vehicle as he operated his motorcycle.
Aikman v. Thomas 887 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts are set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), .
Rodriguez v. City of New Orleans 883 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Of similar effect is the Supreme Court’s per curiam disposition in Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Company, 93-2963 (La.2/25/94), .
Frith v. Riverwood, Inc. 878 So. 2d 595 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Thibodeaux v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 93-2963 (La.2/25/94), , ruled that retroactive application of La.R.S.
Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indem. Corp. 878 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
See Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), -45 ; Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp., 95-0809, p. 5 (La.1/6/96), .
Gray Ins. Co. v. Old Tyme Builders, Inc. 878 So. 2d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Furthermore, the rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts are set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), (footnotes omitted), as follows: An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
Gardache v. City of New Orleans 874 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
In that case, it was argued by the plaintiff that the Cline decision had been implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court in Thibodeaux [v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 93-2963 (La.2/25/94), ].
Thiels v. AMERICAN INTERN. SOUTH INS. CO. 861 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3 Cir. 2/18/97) , , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
Darrell Benjamin v. Asplundh Tree Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
2/25/94), Burge v. Louisiana Ins.
Charles Thiels v. American International South Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3 Cir. 2/18/98), citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
Benjamin v. Asplundh Tree Co. 861 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Thibodeaux v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 93-2963 (La.2/25/94), ; Burge v. Louisiana Ins.
Cochran v. Layrisson 859 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., 93-0509 (La.02/28/94), for the proposition that their claims for mental anguish constitute separate “bodily injury” sustained in the accident, which entitle them to recover uninsured/underinsured benefits up to the $50,000.00 “per-aceident” limit.
Redmon v. Bi-Lo Supermarket 846 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., 93-509 (La.2/28/94); , quoting Sparks v. Tulane Med.
In re Keller 836 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Gottsegen v. Hart Property Management Inc. 820 So. 2d 1138 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), .
Burge v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n 819 So. 2d 1098 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
The supreme court in Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 93-2963 (La.2/25/94); , addressed the application of the provision and stated that: This section [section B] did not provide a credit against an award of supplemental earnings benefits until it was amended effective January 1, 1990.