Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brouillard v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 657 So. 2d 231.

15 citing documents.

BBCL Enterprises, LLC v. American Alternative Ins. Corp. 187 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Cowan v. Kanuch 176 So. 3d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Oliver v. Orleans Parish School Board 133 So. 3d 38 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Siemens Water Technologies Corp. v. Revo Water Systems, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3 Cir. 5/10/95), (internal citations omitted).
Siemens Water Technologies Corp. v. Revo Water Systems, LLC 130 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
App. 3 Cir. 5/10/95), (internal citations omitted).
Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 129 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Paul J. Cox La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 5/10/95), we found that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant allowing plaintiff’s demand for medical payments, penalties, and attorney fees against an insurer to move forward despite a prior judgment dismissing plaintiff’s demands for personal injury damages.
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Cox 128 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
3 Cir. 5/10/95) , , we found that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant allowing plaintiffs demand for medical payments, penalties, and attorney fees against an insurer to move forward despite a prior judgment dismissing plaintiffs demands for personal injury damages.
Igbokwe v. Moser 116 So. 3d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
Benard v. EAGLE, INC. 1 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
3 Cir. 5/10/95) , , the Third Circuit held that convoluted factual or legal scenarios could qualify as exceptional circumstances which justify the application of this exception and used its discretion in determining that res judicata should not apply to the plaintiff's claims.
Ortiz v. Ortiz 821 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Skipper v. Berry 762 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
3 Cir. 5/10/95); , (citations omitted).
Labiche v. LA. PATIENTS'COMP. FUND BD. 753 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
3 Cir. 5/10/95), (defendant's delay in supplying plaintiff with requested discovery, objection to an expansion of the pleadings based on the untimely supplied new information at trial, and subsequent plea of res judicata); (La.App.
Spear v. PRUDENTIAL PROP. AND CAS. INS. 727 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
3 Cir. 5/10/95) , plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained on premises insured by defendant.
Fine v. Regional Transit Authority 676 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996