Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Waits v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 40 So. 2d 746.

27 citing documents.

Coleman v. United Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 181 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
349 , (1949); Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Mahaffey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
349 , (1949); Stanley v. Cryer, 213 La.
Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
349 , Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co., 213 La.
Norton v. Lewis 623 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
349 , (1949); Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Perkins v. McDow 615 So. 2d 312 La. 1993
349 , (1949); Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Norton v. Lewis 604 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
349 , (1949), in which a driver who was employed by the named insured and who had permission to use a truck to transport laborers to various points on a railroad right-of-way, but who took the *684 truck, against direct orders to use it only for work, several hours after it had been parked for the night, and went on a “plea
Carey v. Ory 421 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Gathe v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 345 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 293 La. 1976
349 , (1949); Stanley v. Cryer, 213 La.
Johnson v. Parkchester Realty Corp. 325 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Ritter v. Thornton 309 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Wolfe v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. 272 So. 2d 714 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
349 , (1949); Dominguez v. American Casualty Company, 217 La.
Lusk v. Travelers Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
349 , (1949) as authority for the proposition that once permission has been granted by the owner, a deviation from the specific instructions of the owner respecting the use of the automobile is inconsequential with respect to the coverage of the permittee by the insurance policy.
McConnell v. Travelers Indemnity Company 180 So. 2d 406 La. 1965
349 , (1949); Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Primo v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 172 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1965
349 , (1949); Dominquez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Hampton v. Security Storage and Van Company 148 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
349 , , and Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Coco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 136 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
349 , ; Dominguez v. American Casualty Company, 217 La.
Thomas v. Peerless Insurance Company 121 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
349 , ; and Dominguez v. American Casualty Company et al., 1950, 217 La.
Garland v. Audubon Insurance Company 119 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
349 , , and Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Brooks v. Delta Fire & Casualty Company 82 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
349 , , and Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 217 La.
Parker v. Great American Indemnity Company 81 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
349 , ; and Parks v. Hall, 189 La.
Talbot v. Allstate Insurance Company 76 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1954
349 , ; Dominguez v. American Casualty Co., 1950, 217 La.
Boudreaux v. Cagle Motors 70 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
349 , , 748, the matter of instructions or violation thereof appears to be immaterial insofar as deviation from his employment is concerned, this is not true where the issue is drawn about the problem of the first permittee authorizing a second permittee to operate the vehicle.
Longwell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. 63 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
349 , , 748, the matter of instructions or violation thereof appears to be immaterial.
Fulco v. City Ice Service 59 So. 2d 198 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1952
349 , , 748, all of which went from this Court to the Supreme Court of Louisiana on writs.
Sun Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. 47 So. 2d 133 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
349 , , the Supreme Court again considered this question and, with two justices dissenting, held that initial permission is all that is necessary and that there is coverage, regardless of the use to which the car may be put.
Dominguez v. American Casualty Co. 46 So. 2d 744 La. 1950
349 , ; Cusimano v. A. S. Spiess Sales Co., 153 La.