Oliver v. Ste. Marie

4 Citing cases

  1. Hawkins v. Redmon

    42 So. 3d 360 (La. 2010)   Cited 9 times

    The appellate court found Mervin was the "applicant" and, therefore, the excluded driver endorsement signed by Sandra was invalid. In support of its decision, the court cited Oliver v. Ste. Mane, 97-1469 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 722, unit denied, 98-2077 (La. 11/13/98), 730 So.2d 936, and Safeway Insurance Company v. Johnson, 28, 150 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/24/96), 666 So.2d 1300. ( See discussion, note 4, infra.)

  2. Oliver v. Marie

    730 So. 2d 936 (La. 1998)

    No. 98-C-2077.November 13, 1998. Prior report: La.App., 715 So.2d 722. IN RE: Illinois National Ins. Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Acadia 15th Judicial District Court Div. "A" Number 69,355; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA97-1469

  3. Hawkins v. Redmon

    19 So. 3d 1252 (La. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Bryant v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 03-3491 (La.09/09/04), 881 So.2d 1214. Of significance to this case, the statute specifically provides "the term 'named insured' means the applicant for the policy of insurance issued by the insurer." In reaching its decision, the trial court relied on this Court's opinion in Oliver v. Ste. Marie, 97-1469 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 722, writ denied, 98-2077 (La. 11/13/98), 730 So.2d 936. In Oliver, Guy D. Ste. Marie, his wife, Sharyll, and their automobile insurer were sued for damages arising out of an automobile accident involving their minor daughter, Renee.

  4. Tucker v. Valentin

    807 So. 2d 292 (La. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 5 times

    Accordingly, we find the Third Circuit's holding in Oliver to be inapplicable to the present facts. 97-1469 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 722. Based on the evidence presented by Progressive in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court found that Billie Tucker expressed an intent to not receive UM coverage in the policy under which she was insured, and further fulfilled the statutory requirement to reject such coverage under LSA-R.S. 22:1406.