Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 632 So. 2d 736 (La. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 632 So. 2d 736 (La. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2005 · …timely present at the immediate scene of the accident. ⚠ not in text
278 citation events (194 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Trinh v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Wash. Ct. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
bodily injury" includes mental anguish that is "severe and debilitating.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Trinh v. Allstate Insurance
Wash. Ct. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
bodily injur/' includes mental anguish that is "severe and debilitating.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) McAvey v. Lee
5th Cir. · 2001 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if after applying the other general rules of construction an ambiguity remains, the ambiguous contractual provision is to be construed against the insurer who issued the policy and in favor of the insured.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Allstate Insurance v. Clohessy
11th Cir. · 2000 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we conclude the wife's mental anguish claim is not subject to the single person policy limit regardless of whether her mental anguish 'results from' or 'derives from' her husband's bodily injuries.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Goodno v. Endurance American
5th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So. 2d 736, 741 (La. 1994). 10 Louisiana Ins.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co., 93-509 (La. 2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (citations and footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brewington v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
D. Nev. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 744 (La. 1994) (holding that a similar definition of bodily injury—“bodily injury is bodily injury to a person, and sickness, disease or death that results from it”—-was ambiguous).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerry Garrison v. Rita Bickford
Tenn. · 2012 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 744 (La.1994) (finding ambiguous a policy that defined “bodily injury” as “bodily injury to a person, and sickness, disease or death which results from it”); Lanigan v. Snowden, 938 S.W.2d 330, 332 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (finding the phrase “bodily injury, sickness or disease” ambiguous because it “can be eon-strued in a way that the adjective ‘bodily modifies all three nouns, or it can be construed with equal plausibility that ‘bodily’ modifies only injury”); Lavanant v. Gen.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Indian Harbor Insurance Co. v. Bestcomp, Incorpora
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 741 (La.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard v. Ellis (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (stating: "An insurance policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or strained manner so as to enlarge or restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so as to achieve an absurd conclusion.").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Houle
Alaska · 2011 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 741 (La.1994)). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. Houle
Alaska · 2011 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 741 (La. 1994)). [16] Id. at 1077-78 (concluding that State Farm had waived the relevant arguments about interpretation of the policy). [17] Dowdy II, 192 P.3d at 999 . [18] Id. at 995 . [19] Id. at 1001-02 . [20] Id. at 999-1002 . [21] Id. at 999 . [22] Id. at 1001 . [23] Testing the logic of Dowdy II's definition of "accident," the respondent family members ask: If they were not injured in the same accident as Caroline and Nolan, in what accident were they injured?
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sumner v. Mathes
La. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (stating: “An insurance policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or [4strained manner so as to enlarge or restrict its provisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so as to achieve an absurd conclusion.”). 2 Ms. Sumner’s policy with Progressive 3 contains the following agreement regarding her UM coverage: We will pay for damages which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury: 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard v. Brasseaux
La. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts were set forth by this court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 97-1134, p.3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98), 707 So.2d 986, 988 , unit denied, 98-0713 (La.5/1/98), 718 So.2d 412 , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dowdy (3×) also: Cited "see"
Alaska · 2008 · confidence medium
Crabtree, 632 So.2d at 737. 34 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ryder v. USAA General Indemnity Co.
Me. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 739, 743 (La.1994). [¶ 17] The USAA policy does not contain the same definition of “bodily injury” considered in the overwhelming majority of cases.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Elliott v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Ind. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 737 (La.1994), Crabtree sought mental anguish damages from her insurance company after witnessing her husband being struck by an oncoming car.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jakupko
Ind. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 742 (La.1994), interpreting the same provisions, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that "where two or more persons suffer bodily injury in the same accident, the aggregate amount of coverage for each accident applies [ ] even if one or more persons' bodily injury 'results from' another's bodily injury.” We find the reasoning in these cases from other jurisdictions correlates exactly with the direct involvement element of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims as defined by. the Indiana Supreme Court in Shuamber and Groves.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Connolly (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 738 (brief statement of holding), 739 (policy language quoted) (La.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reis
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 742 (La.1994).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Dennison (4×)
Haw. · 2005 · confidence medium
The court interpreted the claim in light of an insurance policy which allowed for $50,000 in coverage for "all damages due to bodily injuiy to two or more persons in the same accident." Id. at 739 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gray Ins. Co. v. Old Tyme Builders, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts are set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (footnotes omitted), as follows: An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Galgano v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance
Conn. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So. 2d 736, 745 (La. 1994) (concluding that insurance policy definition of bodily injury “includes severe and debilitating mental pain and anguish”); Treichel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thiels v. AMERICAN INTERN. SOUTH INS. CO.
La. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts were set out by the court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 97-1134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/97) , 707 So.2d 986, 988 , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William J. McAvey v. Chen-Horng Lee Chin-Li Lee v. First Financial Insurance Co.
1st Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 741 (La.1994) (“If after applying the other general rules of construction an ambiguity remains, the ambiguous contractual provision is to be construed against the insurer whq issued the policy and in favor of the insured.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Mires
La. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts was laid out by the court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 97-1134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98) ; 707 So.2d 986, 988 , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94); 632 So.2d 736, 741 (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Mires
La. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts was laid out by the court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 97-1134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98) ; 707 So.2d 986, 988 , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94); 632 So.2d 736, 741 (footnotes omitted): 13An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ledet v. Leighton
La. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
The rules concerning the interpretation of insurance contracts was laid out by the court in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 97-1134 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/98) ; 707 So.2d 986, 988 , citing Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94); 632 So.2d 736, 741 (footnotes omitted): An insurance policy is a contract between the parties and should be construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts set forth in the Civil Code.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Allstate Insurance v. Clohessy
M.D. Fla. · 1998 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 745 (La.1994); Auto Club Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
La. · 1997 · confidence medium
In addition to Mr. Crabtree's suit for his own physical injuries, Crabtree's wife sought damages for mental anguish and her loss of consortium. [8] The issue, as framed by this Court, was "whether a wife's mental anguish suffered upon witnessing an injury to her husband constitutes a separate bodily injury under an automobile insurance policy thereby entitling the wife to her own per person policy limit subject to the aggregate per accident limit." Crabtree, 632 So.2d at 737, 738 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cooper
La. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (notes omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Trahan v. McManus
La. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 741, n. 11 (La.1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) First Insurance Co. of Hawai'i v. Lawrence
Haw. · 1994 · confidence medium
The same accident which caused [the husband’s] “bodily injury [accidental harm]” also caused [the plaintiff’s] “bodily injury [accidental harm].” We conclude [that plaintiffs] “bodily injury,” the mental anguish she suffered when she saw the car strike her husband and when she ran to his side to comfort him, occurred “in the same accident” as that which caused [her husband’s] bodily injuries. *13 Id. at 745 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Society of Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Lafayette and Lake Charles, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
3rd Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 738 (La.1994) (finding that while the wife's claim for mental anguish constituted "bodily injury" separate from that suffered by her husband, entitling her to a separate "per person" limit of coverage, her claim was nevertheless subject to the "per accident" limit in the policy); Lantier v. Aetna Casualty & Sur.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Society of Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Lafayette and Lake Charles, Inc. v.
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 738 (La.1994) (finding that while the wife’s claim for mental anguish constituted “bodily injury” separate from that suffered by her husband, entitling her to a separate “per person” limit of coverage, her claim was nevertheless subject to the “per accident” limit in the policy); Lantier v. Aetna Casualty & Sur.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Society of Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Lafayette and Lake Charles, Inc. v.
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Co., 632 So.2d 736, 738 (La.1994) (finding that while the wife's claim for mental anguish 9 constituted "bodily injury" separate from that suffered by her husband, entitling her to a separate "per person" limit of coverage, her claim was nevertheless subject to the "per accident" limit in the policy); Lantier v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.
cited Cited "see" Sova v. Cove Homeowner's Ass'n
La. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crabtree, 632 So.2d at 745 .
cited Cited "see" Frith v. Riverwood, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thibodeaux v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 93-2963 (La.2/25/94), 632 So.2d 736 and Burge v. Louisiana Ins.
cited Cited "see" Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indem. Corp.
La. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 743-45 ; Ledbetter v. Concord General Corp., 95-0809, p. 5 (La.1/6/96), 665 So.2d 1166, 1169 .
examined Cited "see" State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lawrence (7×)
Alaska · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 739 (quoting the policy language). 6 7 .
cited Cited "see" Tolis v. Shields
La. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crabtree,632 So.2d at 736; Yoes, 657 So.2d at 241 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 96-3028, p. 11 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 569, 576 (Although loss of consortium claims are derivative, extent of coverage is nonetheless governed by the language of the policy); see also Crabtree v. State Farm Insurance Co., 93-0509, p. 7 (La.2/28/94), 632 So.2d 736, 741 (Court rejected position that a claim would fall within the single person policy limit merely because a claim "resulted from" bodily injuries to another.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Floyd THIBODEAUX
v.
DIAMOND M DRILLING COMPANY.
93-C-2963.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Feb 25, 1994.
632 So. 2d 736
Per Curiam.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

PER CURIAM.

We granted this application to consider whether La.R.S. 23:1223(B) should be applied retroactively to award a credit to an employer for the temporary total benefits received by an injured employee prior to his award of supplemental earnings benefits. At the time of plaintiff's injury in 1984, LSA R.S. 23:1223 read as follows:

When compensation has been paid under R.S. 23:1221(1), (2) or (3), the amount of such payment shall be deducted from any compensation allowed under R.S. 23:1221(4) or Subpart C of this Part.

This section did not provide a credit against an award of supplemental earnings benefits until it was amended effective January 1, 1990.[1] Because the amendment established a new credit for the employer, thereby divested the employee of compensation, we find that the amendment constituted a substantive change in the law. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 609 So.2d 809, 817 (La.1992). Accordingly, retroactive application of this amendment is impermissible and the employer has no right to a reduction of benefits because no such reduction was authorized at the time of plaintiff's injury.

Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed insofar as the court allowed a credit against the award of supplemental earnings benefits for the temporary total benefits received by the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

DENNIS, J., not on panel.

1 The amendment added section B to the statute, which provides:

When compensation has been paid under R.S. 23:1221(1), (2), or (4), the amount of such payment shall be deducted from any compensation allowed under R.S. 23:1221(3) or Subpart C of this Part.