Broussard v. Pere

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Broussard v. Pere

513 So. 2d 1218, 1987 La. LEXIS 10355

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 30, 1987

DocketNo. 87-CC-2203

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 1218 (Broussard v. Pere) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broussard v. Pere, 513 So. 2d 1218, 1987 La. LEXIS 10355 (La. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Allstate Insurance Co.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 86-52030 D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87-0988.

Writ denied. The District Court was not incorrect in ruling that the motion for summary judgment should be denied as “[t]he question of whether Rhonda Broussard is a ‘resident relative’ within the requirements of the insurance policy must be answered by a review of facts not presently before the Court.” It is unnecessary at this stage in the proceedings to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that “both Rhonda Broussard and her husband, Jeffery G. Broussard, are policyholders under the Allstate policy_” simply because they were both “physically present in the same household....” on the date the policy of insurance was issued.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Allstate Insurance Co.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 86-52030 D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87-0988.

Writ denied. The District Court was not incorrect in ruling that the motion for summary judgment should be denied as “[t]he question of whether Rhonda Broussard is a ‘resident relative’ within the requirements of the insurance policy must be answered by a review of facts not presently before the Court.” It is unnecessary at this stage in the proceedings to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in concluding that “both Rhonda Broussard and her husband, Jeffery G. Broussard, are policyholders under the Allstate policy_” simply because they were both “physically present in the same household....” on the date the policy of insurance was issued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 1218, 1987 La. LEXIS 10355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broussard-v-pere-la-1987.