Bullara v. Acceptance Insurance Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Bullara v. Acceptance Insurance Co.

506 So. 2d 239, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9414

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 5, 1987

DocketNo. W87-462

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 506 So. 2d 239 (Bullara v. Acceptance Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bullara v. Acceptance Insurance Co., 506 So. 2d 239, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9414 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

The trial court erred in not granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Company’s (State Farm) motion for summary judgment. The deposition submitted in support of State Farm's motion clearly establishes as a fact that the automobile driven by Lennard Martin was furnished for his regular use, and thus there is no material issue of fact that the exclusion contained within the policy issued by State Farm applies. Brouillette v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 168 So.2d 389 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1964), writ refused, 165 So.2d 485, 246 La. 594 (1964); Rolling v. Miller, 233 So.2d 723 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970); Romano v. Gir-linghouse, 385 So.2d 352 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1980), distinguished from Wirick v. Wyble, 300 So.2d 571 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1974). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and set aside and summary judgment is granted ordering plaintiffs’ suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company dismissed with prejudice and at plaintiffs’ costs.

GUIDRY, STOKER and KNOLL, JJ., concur.

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

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY:

The trial court erred in not granting State Farm Mutual Automobile Company’s (State Farm) motion for summary judgment. The deposition submitted in support of State Farm's motion clearly establishes as a fact that the automobile driven by Lennard Martin was furnished for his regular use, and thus there is no material issue of fact that the exclusion contained within the policy issued by State Farm applies. Brouillette v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, 168 So.2d 389 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1964), writ refused, 165 So.2d 485, 246 La. 594 (1964); Rolling v. Miller, 233 So.2d 723 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970); Romano v. Gir-linghouse, 385 So.2d 352 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1980), distinguished from Wirick v. Wyble, 300 So.2d 571 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1974). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and set aside and summary judgment is granted ordering plaintiffs’ suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company dismissed with prejudice and at plaintiffs’ costs.

GUIDRY, STOKER and KNOLL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 239, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullara-v-acceptance-insurance-co-lactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack