DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Rogers v. Caston 732 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Plummer v. Allstate Insurance 738 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    In that matter, we stated: In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); , discussing the statutory requirements of what a UM rejection must contain, the supreme court reiterated its holding in Tugwell v. State Farm Ins.
  • Drew v. Martello 729 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    This argument was rejected in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Boyd v. Schroeder 735 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    E.g., Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), ; Lefeaux v. Taylor, 97-0332 (La.App.
  • Clement v. American Motorists Ins. Co. 735 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
  • Cotton v. Credit General Insurance Co. 723 So. 2d 1083 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Daigle v. Awthement, 96-1662, p.3 (La.4/8/97); .
  • Perron v. Reliance Ins. Co. 733 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 3 (La.4/8/97); , 1214 citing Tugwell v. State Farm Ins.
  • Savant v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 725 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
    _______________________ ___________________________ Signature of Agent/Date Signature of Applicant/Date In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); , discussing the statutory requirements of what a UM rejection must contain, the supreme court reiterated its holding in Tugwell v. State Farm Ins.
  • Kinchen v. Bridges 724 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Subsequently, in the case of Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); , the supreme court stated that the insurer providing a 10/20 policy must inform the insured of the two options available under LSA-R.S.
  • Harris v. Safeway Ins. Co. 718 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Horne v. Horace Mann Insurance Co. 717 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Pellerin v. Thibodeaux 716 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 4 (La.4/8/97); , (footnotes omitted) approved a rejection form which simply read “I have been offered and I hereby reject Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury coverage” stating: [Wjhen an applicant elects to purchase only the minimum bodily injury limits al- *133 Iowable, the option of selecting UM coverage at limits lower that [s
  • Autin v. Wilson 714 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , the court held that a waiver form containing language identical to that quoted above was facially valid where the underlying policy was for the minimal amount of bodily injury liability coverage required by law, and thus where there was no possibility of the insured selecting an amount of UM coverage lower than that
  • Abshire v. Reliance National Indemnity Co. 711 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); .
  • White v. Shoalmire 706 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), ; Nesbitt v. Progressive Insurance Co., 29,660 (La.App.
  • Odom v. Johnson 704 So. 2d 1254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); .
  • Dronet v. Safeway Insurance Co. 703 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, et al, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Soileau v. Patterson Insurance Group, Inc. 703 So. 2d 4 La. 1997
  • Soileau v. PATTERSON INS. GROUP, INC. 703 So. 2d 4 La. 1997
  • Isaac v. Patterson Ins. Co. 702 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97); .
  • Richard v. Cormier 702 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The Louisiana Supreme Court in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 6 (La.4/8/97), , rejected an argument that a place for acceptance of UM coverage must be included to allow a meaningful selection or rejection: Moreover in Henson [v. Safeco Insurance Companies, ],we held that the statute does not require an affirmative act to choose coverage.
  • Williams v. Patterson Insurance Co. 700 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    In Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered an insurance policy with an identical waiver provision and found that the language of the waiver, in a case where the policy was issued for the legal minimum limits of liability coverage, was “adequate for the purpose intended by the legislature” and constituted a valid waiver
  • Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co. 699 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), ; Nesbitt v. Progressive Insurance Company, 29660 (La.
  • Riser v. Brown 699 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , citing
  • Lefeaux v. Taylor 700 So. 2d 1027 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Piper v. Southern United Fire Insurance 699 So. 2d 1116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
    The UM rejection form at issue in this matter is identical to the one found valid by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), , rendered subsequent to our original opinion.
  • North v. Granzin 696 So. 2d 998 La. 1997
  • Soileau v. PATTERSON INS. GROUP, INC. 697 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • Mixon v. Progressive Specialty Co. 697 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    See Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Nesbitt v. Progressive Ins. Co. 697 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662 (La.4/8/97), .
  • Dugas v. Benoit 694 So. 2d 224 La. 1997
  • Dronet v. Safeway Insurance Co. 694 So. 2d 224 La. 1997
  • Gatlin v. Safeway Ins. 692 So. 2d 1059 La. 1997