Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bowerman v. Pacific Mut. Ins., 34 So. 2d 53.

14 citing documents.

Clark v. McDonald's System, Inc. 383 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
999 , (1948); and Roby v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., (La.App.
Peyton v. Torg Films Co. 370 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Third, , (1948, in which the timely filing of suit against Pacific Mutual Insurance Company was found insufficient to interrupt prescription against Pacific Employers Insurance Company.
Roby v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. 357 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Co., , (1948) are controlling, but I disagree with those decisions.
Lushute v. Diesi 343 So. 2d 1132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
999 , ; Ruffin v. Blue Plate Foods, Inc. (La.App.Orl.1947) ).
Small v. Caterpillar Mfg. Corp. 319 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1948); Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Company of Lorain, Michigan
Majesty v. Comet-Mercury-Ford Co. of Lorain, Mich. 296 So. 2d 271 La. 1974
Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Bringol 262 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
Co., , (1948) the plaintiff of that case filed a petition against "Pacific Mutual Insurance Company" and later substituted the true insurer "Pacific Employers Insurance Company".
Saxon v. Fireman's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ 224 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
999 , , simply held that suit against a single defendant mistakenly believed to be the proper one did not interrupt prescription against a subsequently-sued defendant.
Jacobs v. Harmon 197 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
Martin v. Mud Supply Company 119 So. 2d 484 La. 1960
Co., , , where it was held that the filing of suit against the named defendant did not interrupt the running of prescription against the insurer, “Pacific Employers Insurance Company”, which had not been cited or served with notice prior to the accrual of prescription.
Andrepont v. Ochsner 84 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
999 , , a workmen's compensation case, the Supreme Court held that prescription was not interrupted as to the insurer of the employer by the filing of the suit against an improper defendant, but we notice that the Court was careful to say: "* * * since the prescriptive period had expired without the filing of a suit aga
Davis v. Lewis & Lewis 60 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Commercial Fire & Casualty Co. v. T. W. Kleinpeter Const. Co. 47 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
999 , .” In view of the fact that the evidence taken on the trial of the rule is not in the record, we accept the statement made in the minutes that evidence was taken and the statement of the trial judge in his written reasons that certain facts were shown as stated therein and upon which he based his ruling.
Achord v. Holmes 34 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
Sup., , 55, is the latest decision on the point involved.