Hawkins v. Redmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. A "Motor Vehicle Liability Policy" as said term is used in this Chapter, shall mean an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified as provided in R.S. 32:898 or 32:899 as proof of financial responsibility, and issued except as otherwise provided in R.S. 32:899, by an insurance carrier duly authorized to transact business in this state, to or for the benefit of the person named therein as insured. B. Such owner's policy of liability insurance: (1) Shall designate by explicit description or by appropriate reference all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby to be granted; and (2) Shall insure the person named therein and any other person, as insured, using any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or implied permission of such named insured against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles within the United States of America or the Dominion of Canada, subject to limits exclusive of interest and costs with respect to each such motor vehicle as follows: (a) Fifteen thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and (b) Subject to said limit for one person, thirty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and (c) Twenty-five thousand dollars because of damage to or destruction of property of others in any one accident. (d) An own”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sensebe v. Canal Indemnity Co. · 246 So. 3d 815 - Lewis v. GEICO Cas. Co.

2. “The sole purpose for the exclusion in LSA-R.S. 32:900(L) was and is premium reduction. William s v. Watson, 01-0495, p. 7 (La.10/16/01), 798 So.2d 55, 59 . As we recognized in Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046, p. 9 (La.1/19/00), 754 So.2d 912, 917 , the purpose of the exclusion ‘is to allow the named insured the option of paying a reduced premium in exchange for insurance that affords no coverage while a covered vehicle is operated by the excluded driver.’ Another split among the appellate court circuits arose shortly thereafter over the issue, of whether a person who purchases liability insurance to comply with LSA-R.S. 32:900(B), and would ordinarily be a named insured under the policy, may contract with the insurer to exclude himself or herself pursuant to LSA-R.S. 32:900(L). The fifth circuit court answered this question affirmatively in Smyre v. Progressive Security Insurance Co., 98-0518, 98-0519 (La.App. 5 Gir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 984 , writ denied, 99-0139 (La.6/4/99), 745 So.2d 14 . Noting that it would be unreasonable to require a. person to pay premiums to cover a vehicle owner who cannot drive due to incapacity or a legal impediment, the fifth -circuit concluded that such an exclusion was not prohibited by the compulsory insurance law or public policy. The court stated: ‘[A] person may need to purchase a vehicle for the use of others in his/her household, but cannot for some reason’of health or law obtain a driver’s license or otherwise operate the vehicle. The perso”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 So. 3d 1185 - Bourg v. Southall

3. “|R(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (B)(2) of this Section, an insurer and an insured may by written agreement exclude from coverage the named insured and the spouse of the named insured. ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ (2) The form signed by the insured or his legal representative which excludes a named person from coverage shall remain valid for the life of the policy and shall not require the completion of a new driver exclusion form when a renewal, reinstatement, substitute, or amended policy is issued to the same named insured by the same insurer of any of its affiliates. Any changes to an existing policy, including but not limited to the addition of vehicles or insured drivers to said policy, regardless-of whether these changes create new coverage,-do not create a new policy and do not require the completion of a new agreement excluding a named person from coverage. For the purpose of this Subsection, a new policy shall mean an original contract of insurance which an insured enters into through the completion of an application on the form required by the insurer. [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 So. 3d 1185 - Bourg v. Southall