pro rata clause in Louisiana

1982In Fremin, supra, the court stated at p. 474: "In this case, the facts hereof disclose that each insurer contracted independently with the insured to provide coverage.... they are separate and distinct obligations and do not result in solidary liability between the obligors." In Fasullo v. American Druggists' Insurance Co., 262 So.2d 810 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ denied 262 La. 1089 , 266 So.2d 220 (1972), this court specifically discussed the effect of a pro rata clause.

1970The case of Fremin v. Collins, 194 So.2d 470 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967), cited by appellants, contains language to the contrary but the reported opinion makes no indication that the pro-rata clauses presently before us were involved in that case.

2018One case that addressed conflicting "other insurance" clauses within the same policy is Offshore Logistics Services, Inc. v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc. , 462 F.Supp. 485 , 492-493 (E.D.

1998To the extent Farmers-Merchants conflicts with the decision herein, we decline to follow it. . 49 La.Ann. 1367 , 22 So. 387 (1897).

1998To the extent Farmers-Merchants conflicts with the decision herein, we decline to follow it. . 49 La.Ann. 1367 , 22 So. 387 (1897).

1997Co., 195 So.2d 390 (La.App. 3 Cir.1967), in which the Third Circuit, in determining that |4any insurer can implead any other alleged insurer by third party demand, stated: Under our interpretation of the pro rata clause, the liability of both insurers with the insured and with each other is solidary.

1997In Viger v. Geophysical Services, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 808 (W.D.La.1972), aff'd and adopting district court opinion, 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1973), plaintiff, a Jones Act seaman, sued *168 GSI, his employer and vessel lessee, and Munchowich, the owner of the vessel upon which he was injured.

1997In Viger v. Geophysical Services, Inc., 338 F.Supp. 808 (W.D.La.1972), aff'd and adopting district court opinion, 476 F.2d 1288 (5th Cir.1973), plaintiff, a Jones Act seaman, sued *168 GSI, his employer and vessel lessee, and Munchowich, the owner of the vessel upon which he was injured.

1997In Layton v. Land & Marine Applicators, Inc., 522 F.Supp. 679 (E.D.La.1981), the court was faced with similar escape and pro rata "other insurance" clauses as in Viger, 338 F.Supp. 808 .

1992The court cited Juan v. Harris, 279 So.2d 187 , and O'Brien v. Traders and General Insurance Company, 136 So.2d 852 (La.

1982In Fremin, supra, the court stated at p. 474: "In this case, the facts hereof disclose that each insurer contracted independently with the insured to provide coverage.... they are separate and distinct obligations and do not result in solidary liability between the obligors." In Fasullo v. American Druggists' Insurance Co., 262 So.2d 810 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ denied 262 La. 1089 , 266 So.2d 220 (1972), this court specifically discussed the effect of a pro rata clause.

1982In Fremin, supra, the court stated at p. 474: "In this case, the facts hereof disclose that each insurer contracted independently with the insured to provide coverage.... they are separate and distinct obligations and do not result in solidary liability between the obligors." In Fasullo v. American Druggists' Insurance Co., 262 So.2d 810 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ denied 262 La. 1089 , 266 So.2d 220 (1972), this court specifically discussed the effect of a pro rata clause.

1982In Fremin, supra, the court stated at p. 474: "In this case, the facts hereof disclose that each insurer contracted independently with the insured to provide coverage.... they are separate and distinct obligations and do not result in solidary liability between the obligors." In Fasullo v. American Druggists' Insurance Co., 262 So.2d 810 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ denied 262 La. 1089 , 266 So.2d 220 (1972), this court specifically discussed the effect of a pro rata clause.

1975In Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 686 , 260 So.2d 669 (1972) an "excess" provision of an "other insurance" clause precluded total recovery in excess of the highest applicable limit in any of several otherwise applicable policies providing uninsured motorist coverage.

1975In Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 686 , 260 So.2d 669 (1972) an "excess" provision of an "other insurance" clause precluded total recovery in excess of the highest applicable limit in any of several otherwise applicable policies providing uninsured motorist coverage.

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971In LeBlanc v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 194 So.2d 791 (3rd Cir. 1967) we discussed at length the construction of the first paragraph quoted above, relative to the situation where there is primary and excess insurance, and held that plaintiff could recover only a total of $5,000, and the coverages could not be "stacked." See also Courville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 797 (3rd Cir. 1967), writ refused, 250 La. 535 , 197 So.2d 79 , which involved the same issues; Rolling v. Miller, La.App., 233 So.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1970); Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Aut

1971Graham v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, 244 So.2d 372 (1st La.App.1971).

1967Co., 176 La. 499 , 146 So. 35 . [5] It may well be that a pro rata clause would apply where the total coverage was so greatly in excess of the value of the property destroyed that insurance provided by one or more policies was truly surplus.

1967Co., 176 La. 499 , 146 So. 35 . [5] It may well be that a pro rata clause would apply where the total coverage was so greatly in excess of the value of the property destroyed that insurance provided by one or more policies was truly surplus.

1967Smith v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co., La.App. 3 Cir., 185 So.2d 857 .

1967Co., 136 S.C. 144 , 134 S.E. 263 , 52 A.L.R. 259 (1926); National Fire Insurance Co. v. Dennison, 93 Ohio St. 404 , 113 N.E. 260 , L.R.A. 1916F, 992 (Ohio S.Ct., 1916). [13] Three other decisions limited an insured's recovery against his insurer to the insurer's proportionate liability under the pro rata clause.

1967Co., 136 S.C. 144 , 134 S.E. 263 , 52 A.L.R. 259 (1926); National Fire Insurance Co. v. Dennison, 93 Ohio St. 404 , 113 N.E. 260 , L.R.A. 1916F, 992 (Ohio S.Ct., 1916). [13] Three other decisions limited an insured's recovery against his insurer to the insurer's proportionate liability under the pro rata clause.