DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, 169 So. 132.

54 citing documents.

  • Brown v. Coregis Ins. Co. 752 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    In 1936, Judge (later Justice) McCaleb authored Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, essentially a one-judge opinion (Judge Westerfield concurred and Judge Janvier dissented) opining that "the defense of immunity from liability because of the engagement in the operation of a governmental function is one which is purely personal to the public corporation."
  • Van Pelt v. Morgan City Power Boat Ass'n, Inc. 489 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    See Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, (La.App.
  • Ely v. Northumberland General Insurance 378 So. 2d 1024 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    144 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., .” Id.
  • Duplantis v. US Fid. & Guaranty Ins. Corp. 342 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    4 Cir. 1962); Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, (La.
  • Sherwood v. Stein 259 So. 2d 876 La. 1972
    In this direct action against the liability insurer, any immunity of the governmental unit or its employee for negligent acts is not available as a defense against suit, Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., and the merit-issue of the insured’s liability is not raised and is not before us in this decision of the' coverage-issue.
  • Gill v. United States Fidelity & Casualty Co. 257 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    In the case of Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, (Orl., La.App.
  • Jones v. Maryland Casualty Co. 256 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 214 So. 2d 138 La. 1968
    See Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, (Orl.
  • Pierce v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York 205 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 229 La.
  • Webb v. Zurich Insurance Company 205 So. 2d 398 La. 1967
    734 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Musmeci v. American Automobile Ins.
  • Hill v. Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital 200 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    [4] Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., (1936).
  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 200 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    144 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., .
  • Burch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 172 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Lusk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 199 So.
  • Turner v. Travelers Insurance Co. 169 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
    See Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., .
  • Benoit v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company 169 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    In the case of Rome v. London and Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, *927 (Orleans Appeal 1936) a 12 year old boy drowned in a municipal swimming pool from some unknown cause.
  • Vidrine v. General Fire and Casualty Company 168 So. 2d 449 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    Rome v. London 3 Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App.Orl., , certiorari denied (see also earlier opinion, 181 La.
  • Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 164 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
  • Humphreys v. McComiskey 159 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
    Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Lusk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 199 So.
  • Rodrigue v. Ponchatoula Beach Development Corp. 151 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    The Trial Court cites as authority the case of Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., .
  • Musmeci v. American Automobile Insurance Company 146 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    191 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., .
  • Vogt v. Hotard 144 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    399 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Pizzitola v. Letellier Transfer Co., La.App., 167 So.
  • D'Antoni v. Sara Mayo Hospital 144 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    App., ; Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance etc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Futch v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York 136 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    734 (1935); and Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., (Orl.App.1936).
  • Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company 134 So. 2d 45 La. 1961
    734 and Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., .
  • Pelican Supply Co. v. Shreveport Plumbing Co. 128 So. 2d 924 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Orleans 1936, ; Stein v. Williams Lumber Co., La.App.
  • Early v. Ethyl Employees Recreation Ass'n 101 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    In Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., , the Court considered a tort action based upon the death of a 10 year old boy.
  • Terrill v. ICT Insurance Co. 93 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
  • Hawayek v. Simmons 91 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    399 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Pizzitola v. Letellier Transfer Co., La.App., 167 So.
  • Carter v. Middleton 76 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    575 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., ; Pizzitola v. Letellier Transfer Co., La.App., 167 So.
  • Davis v. Lewis & Lewis 72 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    450 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Thornton v. Beeson, La.App., 149 So.
  • Gremillion v. Caffey 71 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    * * * "`The legal situation is not the same as that presented in Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., , nor is it the same as that found in Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co., 182 La.
  • Addison v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. 64 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    * * * "The legal situation is not the same as that presented in Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., , nor is it the same as that found in Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co., 182 La.
  • Serpas v. Margiotta 59 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    It will be observed that the plaintiff refrained from making the Louisiana State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals a defendant in this litigation, apparently because of the rule of governmental immunity from liability enunciated in the case of Rome v. London and Lancashire Indemnity Company, La.App., .
  • New York Underwriters Ins. v. B. H. Prewitt & Sons 55 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    158 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co., La.App., 171 So.
  • Anderson v. London Guarantee Accident Co. 36 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
    App., ; Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co., La.
  • Mercer v. Tremont G. Ry. Co. 19 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
    158 ; Rome v. London Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ; Gershner v. Gulf Refining Co., La.App., 171 So.
  • Barnett v. City of Opelousas 13 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
    Plaintiffs also rely on the case of Rome v. London Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., , in contending that even if the city is liberated, its insurer cannot escape liability.
  • Scarborough v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. 11 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    Since the defense which the husband has to the action that may be brought against him is strictly personal, a defense which the insurance company cannot invoke (Rome v. London Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America, La.App., ), we must hold that the suit against the insurance company is well founded in this respect regardless of any collusion between the husband and the wife, the possibility of which is so strongly stressed by counsel for the defendant.
  • Jurisich v. Board of Levee Comm. of Orleans Levee Dist. 8 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    Fouchaux v. Board of Commissioners, supra; Rome v. London Lancashire Indemnity Company, La.App., ; Omes v. Department of Conservation, supra; Henri Petetin, Inc., v. Board of Levee Commissioners, La.App., 142 So.
  • Harvey v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 6 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    734 ; Rome v. London Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., ; Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance, etc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Mock v. Maryland Casualty Co. 6 So. 2d 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
    The legal situation is not the same as that presented in Rome v. London Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., , nor is it the same as that found in Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co., 182 La.
  • Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Fontenot 4 So. 2d 634 La. 1941
    In the case of Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company, La.App., , writ refused; Id., 181 La.
  • Goudeau v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America 200 So. 493 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    in which that doctrine was applied and the operator of a swimming pool held liable for the accidental drowning of a ten year old boy.
  • Lusk v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 199 So. 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
    801 , and Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., La.App., .
  • Lewis v. State 200 So. 265 La. 1941
    103 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., La.App., , and Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co., 182 La.
  • McGuire v. Louisiana Baptist Encampment, Inc. 199 So. 192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    Co., La.App., , cited and largely relied on by the plaintiffs.
  • Seither v. Poter 194 So. 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
    In Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Company of America, La.App., , we allowed each of the parents of a ten-year-old boy $2,500.
  • Dandridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 192 So. 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    191 ; Rome v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., La.App., ; Messina v. Societe Francaise, etc., La.App., 170 So.
  • Perrodin v. Thibodeaux 191 So. 148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1939
  • Petrich v. New Orleans City Park Improvement Ass'n 188 So. 199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
    App., ), and, since there are other defenses which we think are entirely sound and which will result in a dismissal of the suit as to both defendants, we will, as we have said, temporarily indulge the presumption that the Association acted in a proprietary capacity and discuss these other defenses.