No. 312 Precedential Processed

Gunter v. Lord

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed July 12, 1961 · 132 So. 2d 488

Also decided on this docket: La., October 15, 1891 43 La. Ann. 1054; La., July 15, 1872 24 La. Ann. 489

Cited by

Fontana v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 173 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Dever v. GEORGE THERIOR'S INC. 159 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Blanchard v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. 153 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Gunter v. Lord 140 So. 2d 11 La. 1962
Haynes v. Modern Woodmen of America 135 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Bordelon v. Great American Indemnity Company 124 So. 2d 634
Dumas v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 125 So. 2d 12
Constantin v. Bankers Fire and Marine Insurance Co. 129 So. 2d 269

Opinion text

HOOD, Judge (concurring). Although I disagree with the decision of the majority that plaintiff, David Gunter, is entitled to recover the medical expenses which he incurred, in spite of the fact that these same medical expenses had already been paid to him under the “medical payments” provision of the policy issued by defendant insurer, I concur in the refusal to grant a rehearing solely because the majority has repeatedly held that a double recovery of medical expenses is proper under these circumstances. Bordelon v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App. 3 Cir., 124 So.2d 634 ; Dumas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, La. *494 App. 3 Cir., 125 So.2d 12 ; Constantin v. Bankers Fire & Marine Insurance Company, La.App. 3 Cir., 129 So.2d 269 . I feel that my reasons for concurring should be noted, however, since this issue apparently has never been considered or determined by the Supreme Court.