DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Daigle v. Authement, 691 So. 2d 1213.

83 citing documents.

  • Jon Hart v. Ronnie Mabou La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
  • Renee Jackson & Antione Coleman Versus Liberty Personal Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
    Rapalo-Alfaro, supra; Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97)
  • Joyce Nordstrom and David Nordstrom v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company, New Orleans City Sightseeing, LLC, … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
  • Orellana v. Doe 215 So. 3d 989 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • Lonny Hayes v. Viviana Trevino De Barton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
  • Rapalo-Alfaro v. Lee 173 So. 3d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 2 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Terrell v. Fontenot 96 So. 3d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 2 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Gunter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 86 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Id.; Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Naddia Melder, Et Ux. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    Duncan, (citing Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), Roger, )).
  • Melder v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 66 So. 3d 603 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Duncan, (citing Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), ; Roger, ).
  • Ware v. Gemini Insurance Co. 51 So. 3d 179 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Duncan, (citing Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), ; Roger, ).
  • Carla Ann Gingles v. Kinnery Dardenne La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Gingles v. Dardenne 998 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Duncan 950 So.2d at 547 (citing Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), ).
  • Johnson v. Folse 986 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), ; Henson v. Safeco Ins.
  • Gray v. American Nat. Property & Cas. Co. 977 So. 2d 839 La. 2008
    at 4, 950 So.2d at 547 (citing Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), ; Henson v. Safeco Ins.
  • Fescharek v. US Agencies Ins. Co. 979 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Pigron v. Allstate Ins. Co. 972 So. 2d 1269 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), ; Henson, 585 So.2d at 537 .
  • Shannon Pigron v. Allstate Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), Henson, 585 So.2d at 537.
  • Duncan v. USAA Ins. Co. 950 So. 2d 544 La. 2007
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), ; Henson, 585 So.2d at 537 .
  • SUCCESSION OF GREER v. Mills 942 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    22:680(1)(a)(i); Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Freeman v. National Automotive Insurance Co. 916 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Gautreaux v. Dufrene 894 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    [2] Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Knight v. Owens 869 So. 2d 188 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    [6] 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Richardson v. Lott 868 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    We note also that in Evans, 765 So.2d at 369 , and in Esteve, 818 So.2d at 1002 , this court repeated the supreme court's mantra from Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , that a UM rejection form does not meet statutory requirements if it fails to inform the applicant of an available option or forecloses an available option.
  • Midence v. Williams 860 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    On appeal, Hartford contends that the form fails to comply with the requirements of Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , in which the rejection form contained a statement that Louisiana law requires all policies to provide UM coverage unless such is rejected by the insured.
  • Burns v. Hetler 842 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Daigle, at 1214-1216 This Court has addressed this issue previously in Schaefer v. Allstate Ins.
  • Bel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 845 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 4 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Dabney v. Plaisance 832 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), : The insured ...
  • Shirley v. Centennial Insurance Co. 829 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), ; Perez v. Progressive Ins.
  • Esteve v. US Agencies Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. 818 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Daigle, 96-1662, p. 5 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Duhon v. Baquet 815 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
    As the supreme court set forth in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, pp. 3-4 (La.4/8/97); , "the question before us is not whether the form...
  • Mosing v. Domas 798 So. 2d 1105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); .
  • Franklin v. Coleman 793 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    See Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , Pine v. Doolittle, 28,141 (La.App.2d Cir.6/26/96), , writ denied, 96-2269 (La.5/30/97), ; (La.App.
  • Leger v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance 792 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Croker v. Reliance Nat. Indem. Co. 800 So. 2d 4 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    1st Cir.5/31/96), , aff'd, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Jie v. Certified Lloyds Plan 785 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Following this court's decision in Pine, supra, Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.04/08/97), determined the validity of an almost identical rejection form.
  • Stewart v. Edwards 784 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.04/08/97), , a UM insurance rejection form was called into question, which the court ultimately determined was valid.
  • Dardar v. York 808 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Schaefer v. Allstate Insurance 778 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Additionally, that much discretion is given to the insurance carrier in the design of the UM form: Implicit in the Legislature’s direction to insurers to design a form, was the responsibility to design a form that would fairly effectuate the intent of the law.
  • Brandon v. Harper 775 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Thomas v. Safeway Ins. Co. 775 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); .)
  • Weeden v. Landmark American Ins. Co. 768 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    1st Cir.5/31/96), , aff'd, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Thigpen v. RPM Pizza, Inc. 772 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    1st Cir.6/20/97), ); Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Perez v. Progressive Ins. Co. 751 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
    Following that principle, the court held in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , that in a minimum auto liability policy with 10/20 limits, the UM selection form need only contain two options, the selection of UM limits equal to the liability coverage, or rejection of UM coverage, the rationale being that in this scenario a selection of lower UM limits is not available by law because the UM limi
  • Wilson v. Indemnity Underwriters Insurance Co. 751 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , the Supreme Court reiterated its holding in Tugwell v. State Farm Ins.
  • Evans v. Crowe 765 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Subsequently, in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 4 (La.4/8/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court commented that a form does not comply with the statutory requirements if "it fails to inform the applicant of an available option or forecloses an available option."
  • Carrier v. Reliance Insurance 742 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the statutory mandate for uninsured motorist coverage in the case of Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 2 (La.4/8/87); , 1214 and noted: | .¡Uninsured motorist coverage is provided for by statute and embodies a strong public policy.
  • Sutherland v. Babin 735 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    On April 8, 1997 (the date of the trial in this case), the Louisiana Supreme Court rendered Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97) , which clarified Tugwell .
  • Taylor v. Rowell 736 So. 2d 812 La. 1999
    In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , we recognized that a form does not meet the statutory requirements if it fails to inform the applicant of an available option or forecloses an available option.
  • Trahan v. PRUDENTIAL PRO. & CAS. INS. 739 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 2 (La.4/8/97); .