DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 721 So. 2d 885.

400 citing documents.

  • Long v. Bengal Transportation 127 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the meaning of “reasonably controverting a claim” in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , as follows: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Rogel v. Dollar General Corp. 132 So. 3d 978 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the meaning of “reasonably controverting a claim” in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 981063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , as follows: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Anderson v. Kroger, 747 127 So. 3d 1026 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Phillips v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. 136 So. 3d 27 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    We find that the OWC was not manifestly erroneous in concluding that Sanderson did not reasonably controvert this claim, and we use as guidance a similar employer argument set forth in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Leon Roy v. Schilling Distributing Company, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    12/1/98), (citing BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 104, 211 (6th ed. 1990)).
  • Roy v. Schilling Distributing Co. 156 So. 3d 674 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    “Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, 98-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 104, 211 (6th ed.1990)).
  • Salazar v. Command Construction, LLC 117 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, pp. 8-10 (La.12/1/98), -91 .
  • Liggio v. Popeye's Diversified Foods & Seasoning 113 So. 3d 392 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , the supreme court stated that: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Vargas v. Petrin Corp. 115 So. 3d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, *490 Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • McMillan v. City of Monroe 108 So. 3d 869 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Hahn v. X-Cel Air Conditioning, Inc. 108 So. 3d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that statutory penalties and attorney’s fees shall be awarded if the employer or insurer fails to timely pay benefits due the claimant pursuant to La.
  • Youngblood v. Covenant Security Svc, L.L.C. 112 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Arabie Bros. Trucking Co. v. Gautreaux ex rel. Gautreaux 111 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Morris v. Louisiana Machinery Co. 106 So. 3d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98); ; Faulkner, 10-867; 67 So.3d at 658 .
  • Phillip Sensat v. Washington Group International, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Sensat v. Washington Group International, Inc. 106 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    A claim has been reasonably controverted when the employer “engaged in a non-frivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual or medical information *693 presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Bilquist v. Custom Craft Homes, Inc. 105 So. 3d 194 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    6 Brown v. Texas-LA *205 Cartage, Inc., 1998-1063, pp. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Janneck v. LWCC 102 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), -891 .
  • Pitre v. Buddy's Seafood 102 So. 3d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Brown v. Offshore Energy Service, Inc. 104 So. 3d 494 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    The phrase “reasonably controvert” means that the employer must have “some valid reason or evidence on which to base his denial of benefits.” Brown v. Tex-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Dugan v. St.
  • Barbara Brown v. Lafayette Association of Retarded Citizens, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    12/1/98), (alteration ours); La.R.S.
  • Brown v. Lafayette Ass'n of Retarded Citizens 94 So. 3d 950 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    An employer avoids the imposition of penalties and attorney fees when it engages in a “nonfrivolous legal dispute or possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time [it] refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), (alteration ours); La.R.S.
  • Quave v. Airtrol, Inc. 93 So. 3d 733 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court defined “reasonably controverted” as follows: The phrase “reasonably controverted,” on the other hand, mandates a different standard.
  • Hall v. Macpapers, Inc. 95 So. 3d 1131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    “Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8-9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Nitcher v. Northshore Regional Medical Center 92 So. 3d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that “[ajrbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreason *1011 ing action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Baker v. Phillips Van Heusen Corp. 91 So. 3d 1197 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage Inc., 1998-1063 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Nadine Ewing v. Frederick M. Hilburn, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the meaning of reasonably controverting a claim.
  • Viney J. Silas v. Sowela Technical College La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    12/1/98), the supreme court stated: [T]o determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La.
  • Silas v. Sowela Technical College 84 So. 3d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , the supreme court stated: [T]o determine whether the claimant’s right has been reasonably controverted, thereby precluding the imposition of penalties and attorney fees under La.
  • Lopez v. Marques Food Distributors 80 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), ; Sevin v. Chevrolet, 08-1362, p. 15 (La.App.
  • Scott v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America 80 So. 3d 740 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    See Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • George Keith Day v. Superior Derrick Services La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Day v. Superior Derrick Services 80 So. 3d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    A claim is reasonably controverted where there is a nonfrivolous legal dispute and/or the employer “possessed factual and/or medical information to reasonably counter the factual and medical information presented by the claimant throughout the time he refused to pay all or part of the benefits allegedly owed.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Slade v. State ex rel. University of Louisiana at Monroe 79 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    The phrase “reasonably controverted” means that the defendant must have “some valid reason or evidence on which to base his denial of benefits.” Brown v. Tex.-LA Cartage Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), ; J.P.
  • Angie Brown v. Shop Rite, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Henry Marange, Jr. v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Jeffrey Krogh v. Tri-State Refrigeration La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    12/1/98), as follows: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Easton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Kelli Buller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Easton Pharmacy, Inc. v. Buller 76 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 4/27/11), (quoting Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Marange v. Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. 75 So. 3d 990 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3 Cir. 5/5/10), , writ denied, 10-1237 (La.9/17/10), (quoting Brown *1001 v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), ).
  • Krogh v. Tri-State Refrigeration 79 So. 3d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the meaning of “reasonably controverting a claim” in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), , as follows: In general, one can surmise from the plain meaning of the words making up the phrase “reasonably controvert” that in order to reasonably controvert a claim, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.
  • Brown v. Shop Rite, Inc. 75 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    23:1201(F), “the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base his denial of benefits.” Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1068, p. 9 (La.12/01/98), .
  • Williams v. Rowe-Treaudo 75 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Kinchen v. City of Shreveport 73 So. 3d 1011 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    In Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/01/98), , our Supreme Court defined the phrase “arbitrary and capricious,” as used in this context, as follows: Arbitrary and capricious behavior consists of willful and unreasonable action, without consideration and regard for facts and circumstances presented, or of seemingly unfounded motivation.
  • Ford v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD 71 So. 3d 1157 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Faulkner v. Better Services, Inc. 67 So. 3d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Texans Credit Union v. Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry 64 So. 3d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    24:177 C; Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 7 (La.12/1/98), .
  • Christopher Green v. National Oilwell Varco La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    requires action of a less egregious nature than that required for arbitrary and capricious behavior,” Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), we find no error under the facts of this case.
  • Green v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO 63 So. 3d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    requires action of a less egregious nature than that required for arbitrary and capricious behavior,” Brown v. Texas-La Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 8 (La.12/1/98), , we find no error under the facts of this case.
  • Kepco Operating, Inc. v. Eubanks 58 So. 3d 1047 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063, p. 9 (La.12/1/98), .