Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Templegreen2 sentences2003Cases preceding Ducote established the premise that "pollution exclusions are intended to exclude coverage for active industrial polluters, when businesses knowingly emitted pollutants over extended periods of time." Thompson v. Temple, 580 So.2d 1133, 1134 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). 1999We find that the court of appeal erred in concluding that the pollution exclusion clause in this case "excludes coverage only for `active industrial polluters, when businesses knowingly emit[ted] pollutants over extended periods of time.'" Thompson *437 v. Temple, 580 So.2d 1133, 1134 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991). | 3 | 3 |
Pipefitters Welfare Educational Fund v. Westchester Fire Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2000Co., 976 F.2d 1037, 1043 (7th Cir.1992): Without some limiting principle, the pollution exclusion clause would ... lead to some absurd results. 1999Co., 976 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir.1992): Without some limiting principle, the pollution exclusion clause would extend far beyond its intended scope, and lead to some absurd results. | 2 | 2 |
Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., LPgreen2 sentences2003Waste includes material to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. *770 This total pollution exclusion is identical to the pollution exclusion clause dealt with in Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Co., 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), 730 So.2d 432 , which Hermitage cites as controlling authority with regard to interpretation of pollution exclusion clauses. 2001NUS's evidence did not include the exhibits referenced by First State in its motion for summary judgment. [4] After this matter was lodged on appeal, the parties notified this court by letter and by supplemental memoranda that Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Company, 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), 730 So.2d 432 , the previously controlling supreme court case addressing the pollution exclusion exception, had been overruled by Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corporation, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/19/00), 774 So.2d 119 , on rehearing, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/16/01), 782 So.2d 573 . | 1 | 3 |
Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London v. C.A. Turner Construction Company, Inc.green1 sentence2014Turner Const. Co., Inc., 112 F.3d 184, 189 (5th Cir.1997) (“[b]ecause we concluded that the pollution exclusion clause was unambiguous ... we likewise conclude that the buy-back clause is subject to only one reasonable interpretation.”) . | 1 | 1 |
Connor v. Farmergreen1 sentence2000See id. at 1069-70 . | 1 | 1 |
Sellers v. Seligmangreen2 sentences1991In Louisiana, this court in Sellers v. Seligman, 463 So.2d 697, 702 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 464 So.2d 1379 (La.1985), decided a silicosis case with a pollution exclusion clause on the basis of ambiguity in the wording of the policy. 1991In Louisiana, this court in Sellers v. Seligman, 463 So.2d 697, 702 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 464 So.2d 1379 (La.1985), decided a silicosis case with a pollution exclusion clause on the basis of ambiguity in the wording of the policy. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp.
green
2 sentences2021This Court is also mindful of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Doerr, supra, wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that, given the “ambiguous nature and absurd consequences which attend a strict reading of [pollution exclusion] provisions, we now find that the total pollution exclusion was neither designed nor intended to be read strictly to exclude coverage for all interactions with irritants or contaminants of any kind” and that it is appropriate to construe a pollution exclusion clause “in light of its general purpose, which is to exclude coverage for environmental pollution.” 2001NUS's evidence did not include the exhibits referenced by First State in its motion for summary judgment. [4] After this matter was lodged on appeal, the parties notified this court by letter and by supplemental memoranda that Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Company, 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), 730 So.2d 432 , the previously controlling supreme court case addressing the pollution exclusion exception, had been overruled by Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corporation, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/19/00), 774 So.2d 119 , on rehearing, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/16/01), 782 So.2d 573 . | 4 | 2001–2021 |
West v. Board of Com'rs
green
1 sentence2003In West v. Board of Commissioners, 591 So.2d 1358 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), this court refused to extend a pollution exclusion clause to deny coverage for injuries sustained by an investigator who was injured when he inhaled pesticide fumes that had leaked from damaged storage containers at his work, noting that a pollution exclusion clause is inapplicable when an insured only incidentally possesses a pollutant in the course of their business. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Estate of Patout v. City of New Iberia
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 135 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp.
green
1 sentence2001NUS's evidence did not include the exhibits referenced by First State in its motion for summary judgment. [4] After this matter was lodged on appeal, the parties notified this court by letter and by supplemental memoranda that Ducote v. Koch Pipeline Company, 98-0942 (La.1/20/99), 730 So.2d 432 , the previously controlling supreme court case addressing the pollution exclusion exception, had been overruled by Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corporation, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/19/00), 774 So.2d 119 , on rehearing, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/16/01), 782 So.2d 573 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Deni Associates of Florida, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1999See, Deni Associates v. State Farm Ins., 89,115, 89,300 (Fla.1/29/98); 711 So.2d 1135 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
SOUTH CENT. TEL. CO. v. Ka-Jon Food Stores
green
1 sentence1999I find no reason to stray from this Court's previous reasoning in South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Ka-Jon Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 644 So.2d 357 , vacated and remanded, 644 So.2d 368 (La.1994) (vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearings on whether the pollution exclusion clause at issue was actually a policy endorsement). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
South Cent. Bell v. Ka-Jon Food Stores
green
1 sentence1999I find no reason to stray from this Court's previous reasoning in South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Ka-Jon Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 644 So.2d 357 , vacated and remanded, 644 So.2d 368 (La.1994) (vacated and remanded for evidentiary hearings on whether the pollution exclusion clause at issue was actually a policy endorsement). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Wasmuth
green
1 sentence1991It held that the pollution exclusion clause was intended for polluters who knew that they were polluting, not those who did not. 432 N.W.2d at 498 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Sellers v. Seligman
green
2 sentences1991In Louisiana, this court in Sellers v. Seligman, 463 So.2d 697, 702 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 464 So.2d 1379 (La.1985), decided a silicosis case with a pollution exclusion clause on the basis of ambiguity in the wording of the policy. 1991In Louisiana, this court in Sellers v. Seligman, 463 So.2d 697, 702 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 464 So.2d 1379 (La.1985), decided a silicosis case with a pollution exclusion clause on the basis of ambiguity in the wording of the policy. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.