Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., LP, 730 So. 2d 432.

22 citing documents.

Rider v. Ambeau 100 So. 3d 849 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
ding the insureds with less coverage than he or she paid for, and would clearly violate the reasonable expectation of the contracting parties”); Doerr, (“A literal reading of the total pollution exclusions would alter the general scope and expectation of the parties” and “would thwart the very purpose” of the CGL policy); Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , overruled by Doerr, (Kimball, J. dissenting: “I disagree with the majority’s characterization of the pollution exclus
Ella Hawkins v. Andrew John Redmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
01/20/99), Smith v. Zale Indem.
Hawkins v. Redmon 19 So. 3d 1252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-942 (La.01/20/99), ; Smith v. Zale Indem.
Baxter v. Doe 868 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), .
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. MLT CON. 849 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
*770 This total pollution exclusion is identical to the pollution exclusion clause dealt with in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , which Hermitage cites as controlling authority with regard to interpretation of pollution exclusion clauses.
Estate of Patout v. City of New Iberia 849 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
According to the plaintiffs, the trial court improperly applied the court's holding in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-942 (La.1/20/99); as authority, when Ducote had been overruled by Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 00-947 *538 (La.12/19/00); .
Arnette v. NPC Services, Inc. 808 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Pollution Hazard Exclusion After this matter was lodged on appeal, the parties notified this court by letter and by supplemental memoranda that Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Company, 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , the previously controlling case addressing the pollution hazard exclusion, had been overruled by Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 00-0947 (La.12/19/00), , on rehearing, 00-0947 (La.3/16/01), .
Smith v. Reliance Ins. Co. of Illinois 807 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
At the time Reliance filed its motion for summary judgment in the trial court seeking to avoid coverage under the policy, Reliance relied on the Supreme *1019 Court case of Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , which held that a pollution exclusion similar to the one in the Reliance policy was unambiguous and precluded coverage for plaintiffs' petition for damages based on the release of anhydrous ammonia caused by the insured.
Arnette v. NPC Services, Inc. 809 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
[4] After this matter was lodged on appeal, the parties notified this court by letter and by supplemental memoranda that Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Company, 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , the previously controlling supreme court case addressing the pollution exclusion exception, had been overruled by Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corporation, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/19/00), , on rehearing, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/16/01), .
Gaylord Container Corporation v. CNA Ins. Companies 807 So. 2d 864 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
After the conclusion of the Gaylord trial, but prior to the trial court's issuance of reasons for judgment, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, rendered its judgment in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), .
Alexis v. Southwood Ltd. Partnership 792 So. 2d 100 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
In their briefs, Plaintiffs and Defendants both relied on Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), as a guide for our decision.
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 774 So. 2d 119 La. 2000
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal thereafter reversed and dismissed the claim against Genesis based on the interpretation of that exclusion by this court in its decision in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), .
LaFleur v. Hollier Floor Covering, Inc. 774 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
In Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99); , the supreme court upheld a pollution exclusion very similar to the asbestos exclusion at issue herein.
Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. 771 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L. P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99); .
Tippett v. Padre Refining Co. 771 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Relying on the then-recent case of Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lexington.
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp. 766 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
The policy exclusion at issue in this case, the Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement, was addressed in the recent Supreme Court decision Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co. L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), .
Brown v. Coregis Ins. Co. 752 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), .
Sea Trek, Inc. v. Sunderland Marine Mut. Ins. 757 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
[12] Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-C-0942, (La.1/20/99) ; Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-1019 (La.1/14/94); .
Matheny v. Ludwig 742 So. 2d 1029 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
FFIC asserts that the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), , interpreting the same pollution exclusion at issue here favors a finding of no coverage.
Encalarde v. Patterson Insurance 742 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Our Supreme Court recently discussed the interpretation of insurance contracts in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., L.P., 98-0942 (La.1/20/98), , stating: An insurance policy is an agreement between the parties and should be interpreted by using the general rules of contract interpretation as set forth in the Louisiana Civil Code.
Gedward v. Sonnier 728 So. 2d 1265 La. 1999
Ledet v. Leighton 736 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99); .