702 So. 2d 775 - Richard v. Cormier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “IsThe Louisiana Supreme Court in Daigle v. Authement, 96-1662, p. 6 (La.4/8/97), 691 So.2d 1213, 1216 , rejected an argument that a place for acceptance of UM coverage must be included to allow a meaningful selection or rejection: Moreover in Henson [v. Safeco Insurance Companies, 585 So.2d 534 (La. 1991) ], we held that the statute does not require an affirmative act to choose coverage. Any affirmative signature or mark accepting coverage would be mere surplusage, since the coverage is automatically extended by operation of law. An applicant does not have to sign a separate document opting for coverage already provided in the policy. Such a document could be thrown away after the insured’s execution of it without any effect whatsoever. The statute requires an affirmative act only if UM coverage is rejected altogether or, in an appropriate case,' where lower UM limits are statutorily permitted and desired. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that Louisiana Indemnity’s failure to set up its form so as to require a penstroke in favor of coverage renders the form defective. See also Martin v. CNA Insurance Co., 96-1342 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/97) , 692 So.2d 677 . Therefore, the failure of Shelter to include on its form a place to elect UM coverage does not invalidate the Richards’ rejection of UM. The Richards next argue that the form is defective in that it contains a space for an election of lower limits in spite of the fact that lower limits were not available to them because they h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 716 So. 2d 131 - Pellerin v. Thibodeaux

2. “Uninsured motorist coverage is required under an automobile insurance policy in not less than the limits of bodily injury liability unless the named insured rejects the coverage or selects lower limits. La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(l)(a)(i). The insured is afforded three options regarding UM coverage: 1) UM coverage with limits equal to the policy’s bodily injury limits, 2) UM coverage with limits lower than the |3policy’s bodily injury limits, or 3) no UM coverage. Tugwell v. State Farm Ins. Company, 609 So.2d 195 (La.1992); Banks v. Patterson Ins. Company, 94-1176 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/14/95) , 664 So.2d 127 , writ denied, 95-2951 (La.2/16/96), 667 So.2d 1052 . The rejection or selection of lower limits must be done on a form provided by the insurer and signed by the named insured or a representative. La.R.S. 22:1406(D)(l)(a)(ii). The applicant must be given an opportunity to make a meaningful selection from the options available on the form employed by the insurer. Tugwell, 609 So.2d 195 . The rejection “must be expressed clearly, unambiguously and unmistakably.” Henson v. Safeco Ins. Companies, 585 So.2d 534, 538 (La.1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 716 So. 2d 131 - Pellerin v. Thibodeaux