Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Rodriguez, 691 So. 2d 665.

34 citing documents.

Shawn Morgan v. West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Department, Eric J. Morales, in his official capacity as a … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
3/ 17/ 97), Slocum v. Litchfield, 2007- 0006 ( La.
Kottenbrook v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. 69 So. 3d 561 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed a business auto policy | ^containing a very similar definition of “Insured” within the UM coverage of the policy.
Smith v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. 35 So. 3d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Co., 96-1382, p. 3 (La.3/17/97), , 668: An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the civil code.
Wheat v. Nievar 984 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Co., 96-1382, pp. 4-5 (La.3/17/97), ; Slocum v. Litchfield, 07-0006, p. 3 (La.App.
Bussey v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. 984 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Co., 96-1382, pp. 4-5 (La.3/17/97), ; Slocum v. Litchfield, 07-0006, p. 3 (La.App.
Norred v. Litchfield 977 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Co., 96-1382, pp. 4-5 (La.3/17/97), .
Slocum v. Litchfield 964 So. 2d 1006 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), .
Rolston v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 948 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), ; Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480 (La.4/11/94), .
Rolston v. UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N. 948 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), ; Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480 (La.4/11/94), .
Wells v. Flitter 950 So. 2d 679 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Co., 96-1382, pp. 4-5 (La.3/17/97), ; see also La.
Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Calif. Union Ins. 859 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Co., 96-1382, p. 3 (La.3/17/97), ; Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480, p. 3 (La.4/11/94), .
Wickramasekra v. ASSOC. INTERN. INS. CO. 890 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
For an explanation of the rules of interpretation that Louisiana courts use to interpret insurance contracts, see generally Gedward v. Sonnier, 98-1688 (La.3/2/99), ; Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), ; Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp., 95-0809 (La.1/6/96), , modified on other grounds, 95-0809 (La.4/18/96)
Kovac v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 800 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), .
Hardge v. Dubosq 797 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); .
Tedeton v. Simpson 795 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
In Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), , the supreme court dealt with an identical definition of “occupying.” | fiIn that case, (La.App.
Townsend v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 793 So. 2d 473 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), .
Fleming Novelty, Inc. v. Alexander 775 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Company, 96-1382 (La.03/17/97), ; Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, supra ; Adams, supra .
Mitchell v. Patterson Ins. Co. 774 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); .
Aucoin v. ABC Insurance Co. 773 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); , which have concluded that persons in Aucoin’s situation are not “occupying” the vehicle for purposes of UM coverage.
Matthews v. Pete Mercer Const. 758 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court has rejected the argument that an employee of a named insured corporation qualifies as a "you" or named insured under the UM provisions of a policy in Valentine v. Bonneville Ins., 96-1382 (La.03/17/97), .
Ashy v. Migues 760 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
However, in the interim before the trial date, the supreme court handed down its decision in Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); .
Adams v. Thomason 753 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
More recently, in Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Company, 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that: [T]he failure to have someone designated for coverage as a "you" (a named insured) is of no moment.
Tardiff v. Valley Forge Insurance 743 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), .
Succession of Tilley 742 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); ; Jones v. Doe, 95-1298 (La.App.
Nerness v. CHRISTIAN FIDELITY LIFE INS. 733 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); .
Gauthreaux v. Allstate Insurance Co. 731 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), , the Supreme Court was faced with policy language identical to that in the present case, and found no coverage.
Bernard v. Chrysler Ins. Co. 734 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97); .
Gedward v. Sonnier 728 So. 2d 1265 La. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), .
Peterson v. Schimek 729 So. 2d 1024 La. 1999
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), ; Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480 (La.4/11/94), .
Eason v. Financial Indem. Co. 721 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/19/97); .
Adams v. Falcon Equipment Corp. 717 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, supra ; Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Company, 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), .
Sawyer v. Shelter Insurance Companies 702 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Company, 96-1382 (La.1997), ; Collinsworth v. Foster, 28,671 (La.App.2d Cir. 9/25/96), .
Minor v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange 700 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Co., 96-1382 (La.3/17/97), , the supreme court noted again the "fact intensive process" of this inquiry.
Johnson v. Davis 697 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
[7] The Supreme Court recently reasoned along analogous lines in Valentine v. Bonneville Insurance Company, 96-1382 at p. (La.3/17/97); : Because the Sheriff, as the employer of the deputies, has no obligation to supply the deputies with UM coverage at all, there is no reason to believe that the Sheriff intended to provide them with UM coverage at all times, all places and under all conditions.