Aetna Insurance v. Palao
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 27, 1959 111 So. 2d 532; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., June 6, 1975 308 So. 2d 402
Aetna Insurance v. Palao, 263 So. 2d 394 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972).
Cited by
- Roman Catholic Church v. Louisiana Gas Service Co. 618 So. 2d 874 La. 1993
- Williams v. Louisiana MacHinery Co., Inc. 387 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
- Coleman v. Victor 326 So. 2d 344 La. 1976
- Edwards v. Consolidated Underwriters 324 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Opinion text
REDMANN, Judge (concurring). The record establishes that the cost of repairing 1 (not replacing) the damaged porch was $866. Thus the homeowner had a good claim for $866. His insurer is only subrogated to the extent of $715, for which amount alone suit was filed. Thus judgment for $715 is correct. (Except for noting the third party demands were not for contribution or indemnity, I need not express my other differences in views which are largely factual.) . Included in the “Cost to Repair” proposal (by a contractor “Established 1896”) was the specification: “Porch is settled, out of plumb and out of level, and our work does not include any leveling of the porch. Our work will be to replace the damaged sections the same as they are at present.”