Aetna motion in Louisiana

1996One member of the Court of Appeal panel dissented. [6] *562 Fontenot, Chevron and Dantzler applied for writs in this Court, assigning as errors the appellate court's failure to invoke federal maritime law to a claim cognizable in admiralty, its purportedly erroneous conclusion that under Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 , 105 S.Ct. 1421 , 84 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), a workover contract is a non-maritime contract, and its finding that the workover contract was subject to Louisiana's Anti-Indemnity Act, a finding which is allegedly inconsistent with prior jurisprudence and interferes with t

1996One member of the Court of Appeal panel dissented. [6] *562 Fontenot, Chevron and Dantzler applied for writs in this Court, assigning as errors the appellate court's failure to invoke federal maritime law to a claim cognizable in admiralty, its purportedly erroneous conclusion that under Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 , 105 S.Ct. 1421 , 84 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985), a workover contract is a non-maritime contract, and its finding that the workover contract was subject to Louisiana's Anti-Indemnity Act, a finding which is allegedly inconsistent with prior jurisprudence and interferes with t

1996Jordan v. Intercontinental Bulktank Corp., 621 So.2d 1141 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993).

1989In Aetna Finance Co. of Baton Rouge v. Perkins, 448 So.2d 121 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), the court cited Liberty Loan Corporation v. Stanley, 389 So.2d 1355, 1359 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980) in holding that despite Aetna’s violation of the disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Law and its regulations they were unable to find any provision which would authorize the avoidance of the transactions.

1989In keeping with our holding in McHugh v. Chastant, 503 So.2d 791 (La.

1972On appeal, this court upheld the dismissal of Sara Mayo Hospital on the grounds of charitable immunity (see 224 So.2d 846 ), and that judgment is now definitive. [1] C.

1967Co. v. Wilson, 207 Okl. 574 , 251 P.2d 175 (1952); Shipman v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, 232 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Mo., 1964); Canal Insurance Company v. Brooks, 201 F. Supp. 124 (W.D.La., 1962). [5] Aetna's motion to dismiss the appeal as to it will be discussed below in section 3 of this opinion. [6] In the policy definitions, it is stated that "`garage' means an automobile sales agency, repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place * * *." [7] The pertinent policy provision in full is: "Persons insured.

1967Co. v. Wilson, 207 Okl. 574 , 251 P.2d 175 (1952); Shipman v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, 232 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Mo., 1964); Canal Insurance Company v. Brooks, 201 F. Supp. 124 (W.D.La., 1962). [5] Aetna's motion to dismiss the appeal as to it will be discussed below in section 3 of this opinion. [6] In the policy definitions, it is stated that "`garage' means an automobile sales agency, repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place * * *." [7] The pertinent policy provision in full is: "Persons insured.

1967Co. v. Wilson, 207 Okl. 574 , 251 P.2d 175 (1952); Shipman v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, 232 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Mo., 1964); Canal Insurance Company v. Brooks, 201 F. Supp. 124 (W.D.La., 1962). [5] Aetna's motion to dismiss the appeal as to it will be discussed below in section 3 of this opinion. [6] In the policy definitions, it is stated that "`garage' means an automobile sales agency, repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place * * *." [7] The pertinent policy provision in full is: "Persons insured.

1967Co. v. Wilson, 207 Okl. 574 , 251 P.2d 175 (1952); Shipman v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, 232 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Mo., 1964); Canal Insurance Company v. Brooks, 201 F. Supp. 124 (W.D.La., 1962). [5] Aetna's motion to dismiss the appeal as to it will be discussed below in section 3 of this opinion. [6] In the policy definitions, it is stated that "`garage' means an automobile sales agency, repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place * * *." [7] The pertinent policy provision in full is: "Persons insured.

1967We held in Vidrine v. Simoneaux, 145 So.2d 400 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1962), that where two persons are sued as solidary obligors, and the plaintiff takes no appeal from a judgment which dismisses the suit as to one defendant and condemns the other, an appeal by the latter brings the discharged defendant before the appellate court, and the litigation may be continued against him as though an appeal from the judgment of dismissal had been taken by plaintiff.