Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Marcus v. Hanover Ins. Co., Inc., 740 So. 2d 603.

67 citing documents.

Ngoc Troung v. Marcus Dewayne Sanders and Old American Indemnity Company La. 2025
Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana v. National General Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Huberto Martinez v. American Transport Group Risk Retention Group, Inc., Salah Dahir and Starr Carriers, LLC C/W Ada … La. 2024
Lee Mallahan, III v. Eric Guevara La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
Tiffany Wines v. Jamila Hollingsquest and Geico Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
Donna Johnson v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Co., 98- 2040 (La.6/4/99), Simms v. Butler, 97-0416 (La.12/2/97)
Calvin Landry & Mary Landry v. Progressive La. 2022
James Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Mann v. Tim Clark Constr., LLC 273 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
King Charles v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Charles v. Safeway Ins. Co. of La. 272 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Bosse v. Access Home Ins. Co. 267 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Donald Paul Ardoin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
06/04/1999), which requires that an automobile liability policy follows the [auto], regardless of the type of permissive operation of the driver of the [auto], and thereby violated the public policy of this state.
Ardoin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 261 So. 3d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
06/04/1999), , which requires that an automobile liability policy follows the [auto], regardless of the type of permissive operation of the driver of the [auto], and thereby violated the public policy of this state.
Gibbs Constr., L.L.C. v. Nat'l Rice Mill, L.L.C. 238 So. 3d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Safeway Insurance Co. of Louisiana v. Gardner 191 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
Co., 98-2040 (La.06/04/99), .
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Safeway Insurance Co. 180 So. 3d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Co., 1998-2040 (La.06/04/99), .
Litton v. White 169 So. 3d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), ; Simms v. Butler, 97-0416 (La.12/2/97), .
Kevin Melbert v. Compsource Oklahoma La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Melbert v. Compsource Oklahoma 149 So. 3d 841 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
Nicholas Williams v. Usagencies Casualty Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Williams v. USAgencies Casualty Ins. Co. 140 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., Inc., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
Hunter v. Usagencies Insurance 130 So. 3d 1008 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), ; Clarendon Nat’l Ins.
James Moss v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Thelma M. Hodges v. Michael A. Taylor La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
6/4/99), Czop v. White, 11-310 (La.App.
Hodges v. Taylor 91 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Co., Inc., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), ; Czop v. White, 11-310 (La.App.
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation 63 So. 3d 955 La. 2011
Co., Inc., 1998-2040 (La.6/4/99), ; State v. Edwards, 2000-1246 (La.6/1/01), .
Sensebe v. Canal Indemnity Co. 58 So. 3d 441 La. 2011
Co., 98-2040, p. 4 (La.6/4/99), .
Hoagboon v. Cannon 54 So. 3d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., Inc., 98-2040, p. 4 (La.6/4/99), ; see La.
Goldsmith v. Green 47 So. 3d 637 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Company, 1998-2040 (La.06/04/99), .
Harris v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 35 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
In Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., Inc., 98-2040, p. 4 (La.6/4/99), , the supreme court set forth the following legal axioms relating to the interpretation of insurance policies.
Mednick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 31 So. 3d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
Diggs v. Tillman 985 So. 2d 767 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Co., Inc., 98-2040, p. 4 (La.6/4/99), ; Pareti v. Sentry Indem.
Harrell v. Currie 975 So. 2d 777 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Co., Inc., 98-2040, p. 4 (La.6/4/99), .
Burgos v. STAR AUTO SERVICE, INC. 973 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), , Fidelity argues that the business pursuits exclusion operates to cause the vehicle to drive in and out of coverage depending on the particular mission on which the driver is engaged.
Stewart Contractors v. Metalpro Indus. 969 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Supreme Services, supra at p. 6 , 958 So.2d at 638-639 ; Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183 ; Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., Inc., 98-2040, p. 4 (La.6/4/99), .
Rager v. Bourgeois 951 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Citing as support, Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Company, Inc., 98-2040, pp. 8-10 (La.6/4/99), -10 , Canal alternatively prayed that any applicable invalid policy provision be reformed only to the extent of the same minimum compulsory limit.
Medina v. Woods 944 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
In Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), , the Supreme Court stated that "[a]bsent a conflict with statutory provisions or public policy, insurers are entitled to limit their liability and to impose reasonable conditions upon the obligations they contractually assume."
Kline v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANIES 942 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Cadwallader, 848 So.2d at 583 ; Marcus v. Hanover, 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
Alwyn J. Boutte, Sr. v. Fireman's Fund County Mutual Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Boutte v. FIREMAN'S FUND COUNTY MUT. INS. 930 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Fireman's Fund further argues that, even if its named-driver exclusion were found invalid, the policy can only be reformed to provide minimum coverage of $10,000/$20,000 pursuant to Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
Edwards v. Daugherty 883 So. 2d 932 La. 2004
Co. Inc., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
James Falgout v. Walter Jester La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In reversing the trial court, the first circuit stated the following: In Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), the Supreme Court interpreted a business use exclusion in an insurance policy and stated that an insurance policy is a contract that constitutes the law between the parties.
Falgout v. Jester 883 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In reversing the trial court, the first circuit stated the following: In Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), , the Supreme Court interpreted a business use exclusion in an insurance policy and stated that an insurance policy is a contract that constitutes the law between the parties.
Bryant v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 881 So. 2d 1214 La. 2004
Co., 98-2040, p. 3 (La.6/4/99)
Bryant v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N 881 So. 2d 1214 La. 2004
Co., 98-2040, p. 3 (La.6/4/99)
Davis v. Counts 880 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Co., 98-2040 (La.06/04/99), .
Goodwin v. Western Heritage Ins. Co. 880 So. 2d 985 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Savana, supra, citing Marcus v. Hanover Insurance Co., Inc., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
Lemoine v. Illinois National Insurance Co. 868 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Cadwallader, 848 So.2d at 583 ; Marcus v. Hanover, 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Noyes 872 So. 2d 1133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Co., Inc., 98-2040 (La.6/4/99), .