Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Manzella v. Doe, 664 So. 2d 398.

39 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
Constance S. Williams and Abram Zenon v. Nasser Abousamak La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
12/8/95), the supreme court explained that the plaintiff seeking to recover from an insurance company under the provisions of the omnibus clause of an automobile liability policy has the burden of proving that the driver was operating the vehicle with the consent of the named insured: The plaintiff has
Kayla Carpenter, on Behalf of Alexis Walters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Carpenter ex rel. Walters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 235 So. 3d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Coleman v. United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 181 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
32:900', and the broad' interpretation of' permission in the jurisprudence, Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), ; Langston v. Shirley, 28,815 (La.App.
Norbert Berard, Sr. v. Home State County Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Berard v. Home State County Mutual Ins. 89 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Jennifer Lopez v. Safeway Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
12/8/95), Francois v. Alexander, 99-1760 (La.App.
Van v. Ferrell 58 So. 3d 522 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Manzella v. Doe, 1994-2854 (La.12/08/95), .
Sensebe v. Canal Indemnity Co. 58 So. 3d 441 La. 2011
Andrew Richard v. Robert Brasseaux, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
Richard v. Brasseaux 50 So. 3d 282 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Chisley v. Coleman 972 So. 2d 1221 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), ; Jones, supra .
Barton v. U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Co. 948 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95)
Hartzo v. AMERICAN NAT. PROP. AND CAS. INS. 951 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Hartzo v. American National Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 951 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See 2Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95)
Jones v. Foster 945 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Charles E. Slain, Jr. v. Carnell J. Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Slain v. Thomas 931 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Arceneaux v. Norman 931 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854, p. 4 (La.12/8/95), .
Henry Arceneaux v. Pamela Norman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Brown v. Unknown Driver 925 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Brown argues that the Supreme Court case of Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), , compels a finding in her favor.
Campbell v. Verrett 829 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95); .
Wells v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co. 803 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Valdetero v. Commercial Union Insurance 782 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
IMPLIED PERMISSION The law with regard to implied permission was fully reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854, p. 6 (La.12/8/95); -02 (alteration in original): Under an automobile liability insurance policy provision referred to as an “omnibus clause,” insurance coverage is expanded to include persons who are using the insured’s vehicle with the insured’s express or implied permission.
Lee v. Taylor 808 So. 2d 407 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
12/8/1995), , the court noted that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the fact of initial use with express or implied permission of the insured to make coverage effective under an omnibus clause.
Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 771 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854, pp. 6-7 (La.12/8/95); (citation omitted).
Francois v. Alexander 771 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
[2] Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95); ; Wolfe v. Employers Com.
Lavergne v. Thomas 758 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95); .
Pope v. Allstate Insurance Co. 751 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
5th Cir.1/26/99), ; Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95)
Tross v. Windsor Ins. Co. 726 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
32:900(B)(2); Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Washington v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 709 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), .
Dixon v. Tillman 694 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Johnson v. White 693 So. 2d 1223 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Turner v. Alexander 690 So. 2d 756 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Blackman v. Eggerton 684 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s most recent statement on this issue is found in Manzella v. Doe, 94-2854 (La.12/8/95), , as follows: Under an automobile liability insurance policy provision referred to as an “omnibus clause,” insurance coverage is expanded to include persons who are using the insured’s vehicle with the insured’s express or implied permission.
Pendleton v. Smith 674 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Prudhomme v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. 671 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Boyd v. Terrell 669 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
12/8/95), , the Supreme Court reaffirmed the law concerning implied consent.